T 1091/02 (Methods for detection/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) of 23.07.2004
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T109102.20040723
- Date of decision
- 23 July 2004
- Case number
- T 1091/02
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 92305862.2
- IPC class
- C12Q 1/68
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- T 1091/02 Methods for detection II/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE 2006-06-28
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Methods for detection of carcinoma metastases by nucleic acid amplification
- Applicant name
- F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG
- Opponent name
- (1) bioMérieux B.V.
(2) Vysis Inc. - Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. (a) Can opponent status be freely transferred?
(b) If question 1(a) is answered in the negative: Can a legal person who was a 100%-owned subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates acquire opponent status if all its shares are assigned by the opponent to another company and if the persons involved in the transaction agree to the transfer of the opposition?
2. If question 1(a) or (b) is answered in the affirmative:
(a) Which formal requirements have to be fulfilled before the transfer of opponent status can be accepted? In particular, is it necessary to submit full documentary evidence proving the alleged facts?
(b) Is an appeal filed by an alleged new opponent inadmissible if the above formal requirements are not complied with before expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal?
3. If question 1(a) and (b) is answered in the negative: Is an appeal admissible if, although filed on behalf of a person not entitled to appeal, the notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request that the appeal be considered filed on behalf of a person entitled to appeal?
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 105 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 117(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 122 1973European Patent Convention Art 133(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 20(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 20(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 20(3) 1973European Patent Convention R 21 1973European Patent Convention R 60(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 61 1973European Patent Convention R 64(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 88 1973European Patent Convention R 92(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 92(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Transfer of opponent status - substantive requirements - formal requirements - appeal filed by alleged transferee of opponent status - auxiliary request to consider appeal filed by original opponent - referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal
- Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0001/86G 0004/88G 0009/91G 0009/93G 0001/94G 0003/97J 0010/87J 0016/94T 0234/86T 0349/86T 0475/88T 0005/89T 0482/89T 0563/89T 0789/89T 0553/90T 0340/92T 0649/92T 0659/92T 0870/92T 0590/93T 0670/95T 0001/97T 0298/97T 0799/97T 1137/97T 1204/97T 0097/98T 0656/98T 0814/98T 0460/99T 0602/99T 0711/99T 0854/99T 0009/00T 0824/00T 0715/01T 0788/01T 0854/02
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. (a) Can opponent status be freely transferred?
2. (b) If question 1(a) is answered in the negative: Can a legal person who was a 100%-owned subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates acquire opponent status if all its shares are assigned by the opponent to another company and if the persons involved in the transaction agree to the transfer of the opposition?
2. If question 1(a) or (b) is answered in the affirmative:
(a) Which formal requirements have to be fulfilled before the transfer of opponent status can be accepted? In particular, is it necessary to submit full documentary evidence proving the alleged facts?
(b) Is an appeal filed by an alleged new opponent inadmissible if the above formal requirements are not complied with before expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal?
3. If question 1(a) and (b) is answered in the negative:
Is an appeal admissible if, although filed on behalf of a person not entitled to appeal, the notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request that the appeal be considered filed on behalf of a person entitled to appeal?