T 0015/01 (Mystery Swine Disease/SDLO) of 17.06.2004
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T001501.20040617
- Date of decision
- 17 June 2004
- Case number
- T 0015/01
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 92913710.7
- IPC class
- A61K 39/12
- 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
- Causative agent of the mystery swine disease, vaccine compositions and diagnostic kits
- Applicant name
- Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek
- Opponent name
- Cyanamid Iberica
Akzo Nobel N.V. - Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
1. The same priority right may be validly claimed in more than one European patent application; there is no exhaustion of priority rights (see points 25 to 41 of the reasons).
2. Rule 20(3) EPC does not apply in the context of universal successions in law. The universal successor of a patent applicant or patentee automatically acquires party status in proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (see points 4 to 12 of the reasons).
3. Neither Rule 57a nor Article 123(3) EPC is infringed if a patent proprietor files a separate set of claims for a specific contracting state in opposition proceedings in order to take into account that, due to a reservation made under Article 167(2)(a) EPC, product claims as granted would be considered invalid in this state (see points 17 to 21 of the reasons).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 112 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 139(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 167(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 167(5) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention Art 87(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 88 1973European Patent Convention R 101(7) 1973European Patent Convention R 20 1973European Patent Convention R 57a 1973European Patent Convention R 61 1973European Patent Convention R 64(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 87 1973European Patent Convention R 88 1973European Patent Convention R 90(1) 1973Paris_Convention_Art_4F,_4gPatent Cooperation Treaty Art 8(2)
- Keywords
- Admissibility of appeal (yes) - party status of universal successor of original patentee (yes) - correction of wrong designation of appellant (allowed)
Allowability of amendments: new set of claims for ES/GR (yes)
Broadening of scope of protection (no)
Priority (yes) - doctrine of exhaustion of priority (no)
Novelty and inventive step (yes) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0002/88G 0003/93G 0007/93G 0002/98G 0002/02T 0522/94T 0353/95T 0001/97T 0461/97T 0097/98T 0656/98T 0814/98T 0460/99T 0998/99T 0715/01
- Citing cases
- G 0001/12G 0001/13G 0001/22G 0002/22R 0004/23J 0007/21J 0002/22T 0005/05T 0006/05T 1421/05T 1476/05T 1562/06T 1668/07T 0501/09T 1912/09T 0128/10T 1551/10T 1703/10T 2223/10T 1222/11T 0854/12T 2357/12T 0557/13T 1226/13T 0318/14T 0969/14T 1755/14T 0198/15T 0696/16T 0715/16T 1415/16T 1897/17T 0844/18T 2360/19T 2516/19T 2575/19T 2689/19T 0088/21T 1713/22
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal of appellant I is admissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the claims of the new main request filed during oral proceedings, and a description to be adapted.