J 0013/14 of 13.12.2016
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:J001314.20161213
- Date of decision
- 13 December 2016
- Case number
- J 0013/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- -
- IPC class
- -
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- -
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.1.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 14(1)European Patent Convention Art 14(2)European Patent Convention Art 14(3)European Patent Convention Art 70(2)European Patent Convention Art 76(1)European Patent Convention Art 90European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 36(2)European Patent Convention R 4 1973European Patent Convention R 57(a)European Patent Convention R 58
- Keywords
- Application filed in the language of the earlier application (no) - translation required or admissible (no) - correction of inadmissible language (no) - amendment of inadmissible language (no) - application treated as divisional application (no)
- Catchword
- 1. For the purposes of Article 76(1), first sentence, and Rule 36(2), first sentence, EPC, a European divisional application of an earlier European patent application which was filed in an EPO official language must also be filed in the EPO official language of the earlier application. Otherwise, it is filed in an inadmissible language. In this case a correction of the language deficiency by means of a translation into the language of the proceedings for the earlier application is neither required under Rule 36(2), second sentence, EPC nor is it even admissible in view of the wording of that provision and the Enlarged Board's decision G 4/08. Nor is it possible for the applicant to remedy the language deficiency in its divisional application by means of a correction under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC or by means of an amendment under Article 123(2) EPC.
2. In accordance with the established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, a European divisional application which was filed in an inadmissible language cannot be treated as a valid divisional application by analogous application of Article 90(2) EPC. - Cited cases
- G 0001/05G 0004/08G 0001/12J 0005/81J 0011/91J 0022/95J 0002/01J 0017/04J 0018/04J 0026/10J 0004/11T 0271/85T 0198/88T 0642/12
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the questions filed during the oral proceedings before the Legal Board is refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.