G 0001/13 (Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY II) of 25.11.2014
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2014:G000113.20141125
- Date of decision
- 25 November 2014
- Case number
- G 0001/13
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 99906328.2
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Process for producing fischer-tropsch catalysts
- Applicant name
- Sasol Technology (Proprietary) Limited
- Opponent name
- Formalities Bureau Limited
- Board
- -
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- "Peaktone Ltd v. Joddrell" Court of Appeal (England and Wales), [2012] EWCA Civ 1035European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 121European Patent Convention Art 122European Patent Convention Art 99(1)European Patent Convention R 152(8)
- Keywords
- Admissibility of referral (yes)
Opponent company ceasing to exist under national law
Retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law
Recognition by EPO of retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law (yes)
Opposition proceedings to be continued by restored opponent company (yes)
Admissibility of appeal (yes) - Catchword
- The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:
1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company.
2. Where, in the factual circumstances underlying Question 1, a valid appeal is filed in due time in the name of the non-existent opponent company against the decision maintaining the European patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to existence, with retroactive effect as described in Question 1, takes place after the expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC, the Board of Appeal must treat the appeal as admissible.
3. Not applicable.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:
1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company.
2. Where, in the factual circumstances underlying Question 1, a valid appeal is filed in due time in the name of the non-existent opponent company against the decision maintaining the European patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to existence, with retroactive effect as described in Question 1, takes place after the expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC, the Board of Appeal must treat the appeal as admissible.
3. Not applicable.