T 1178/04 (Enzyme additives for ruminant feeds/HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA) of 27.02.2007
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T117804.20070227
- Date of decision
- 27 February 2007
- Case number
- T 1178/04
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 96920670.5
- IPC class
- A23K 1/165
- 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
- Enzyme additives for ruminant feeds
- Applicant name
- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada
- Opponent name
- BASF Aktiengesellschaft
- Board
- 3.3.09
- Headnote
The duty of the European Patent Office to examine, ex officio, the status of the opponent at all stages of the proceedings extends not only to the admissibility of the original opposition but also to the validity of any purported transfer of the status of opponent to a new party.
The doctrine of no reformatio in peius is of no application in relation to the exercise of such duty.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 106(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 106(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 68(1) 1973
- Keywords
- Purported new opponent a 'party to proceedings'(yes)
Admissibility of purported opponent's appeal (yes)
Ruling on transfer of opponent status a 'decision' of the Opposition Division (yes)
Proprietor adversely affected by decision (no)
Proprietor not adversely affected by decision prevented from presenting arguments relating to validity of transfer of opponent status (no)
Reformatio in peius (not applicable)
Validity of transfer of opponent status (no)
Remittal to Opposition Division (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (no) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is held admissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division with the order to continue the opposition proceedings with DSM N.V. as opponent.
4. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.