T 1668/07 of 27.10.2011
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T166807.20111027
- Date of decision
- 27 October 2011
- Case number
- T 1668/07
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 97917734.2
- IPC class
- H04N 5/445H04N 5/50
- 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
- BOOKMARKING TELEVISION PROGRAM AND CHANNEL SELECTIONS
- Applicant name
- Irdeto Access B.V.
- Opponent name
- IGR GmbH & Co. KG
- Board
- 3.5.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- Decision AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Art 7of the EPC Revision ActDecision_AC of 7 December 2006 amending the Implementing Regulations to the EPC 2000EPC2000 Revision Act of 29 November 2000European Patent Convention Art 100 1973European Patent Convention Art 101(3)European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 64(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 80Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Keywords
- Party to appeal proceedings - change of name - entitlement (yes)
Inventive step - no (first to fourth auxiliary requests)
Claims - support by description - no (fifth auxiliary request)
Inventive step - yes (sixth auxiliary request) - Catchword
- If an appellant files an appeal using a new name and without indicating that its name has changed, the requirements of Article 107, first sentence, and Rule 64(a) EPC 1973 are met provided the appellant is identifiable and substantiates its change of name, for entry in the European Patent Register, at the latest upon the board's invitation under Rule 65(2), first sentence, EPC 1973.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The case is remitted to the first-instance department with the order to maintain the patent in amended form with claims 1 to 9 according to the sixth auxiliary request, filed during the oral proceedings of 27 October 2011, and a description to be adapted.