T 1007/01 (Intervention/EOS) of 27.10.2004
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T100701.20041027
- Date of decision
- 27 October 2004
- Case number
- T 1007/01
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 96103986.4
- IPC class
- B29C 67/00
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in German
- Other decisions for this case
- T 1007/01 2005-09-30
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Vorrichtung und Verfahren zum Herstellen eines dreidimensionalen Objektes
- Applicant name
- EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems
- Opponent name
- 3D Systems Inc.
- Board
- 3.2.05
- Headnote
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
I. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
II. If the answer to question I is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the criteria for an admissible intervention explicitly laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 105 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973
- Keywords
- Intervention in appeal proceedings
Continuation of proceedings after withdrawal of sole appeal
Referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
I. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
II. If the answer to question I is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the criteria for an admissible intervention explicitly laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?