T 0445/08 of 30.01.2012
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T044508.20120130
- Date of decision
- 30 January 2012
- Case number
- T 0445/08
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 99955620.2
- IPC class
- B01D 65/08C02F 1/44B01D 61/22
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- T 0445/08 Water Filtration/Zenon/Identity of the Appellant 2015-03-26
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- WATER FILTRATION USING IMMERSED MEMBRANES
- Applicant name
- Zenon Technology Partnership
- Opponent name
- Evoqua Water Technologies LLC
- Board
- 3.3.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention R 101(1)European Patent Convention R 101(2)European Patent Convention R 41(2)(c)European Patent Convention R 99(1)(a)
- Keywords
- Notice of appeal filed in name of person not entitled to appeal - Error alleged in identity (yes): deficiency under Rule 101(2) and 99(1)(a) EPC or error under Rule 139 EPC? Point of law of fundamental importance - contradictory case law [yes] - legal uncertainty about admissibility requirements [yes] - necessity to refer questions to Enlarged Board [yes]
- Catchword
- Questions
(1) When a notice of appeal, in compliance with Rule 99(1)(a) EPC, contains the name and the address of the appellant as provided in Rule 41(2)(c) EPC and it is alleged that the identification is wrong due to an error, the true intention having been to file on behalf of the legal person which should have filed the appeal, is a request for substituting this other legal or natural person admissible as a remedy to "deficiencies" provided by Rule 101(2) EPC?
(2) If the answer is yes, what kind of evidence is to be considered to establish the true intention?
(3) If the answer to the first question is no, may the appellant's intention nevertheless play a role and justify the application of Rule 139 EPC?
(4) If the answer to questions (1) and (3) is no, are there any possibilities other than restitutio in integrum (when applicable)?
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board:
(1) When a notice of appeal, in compliance with Rule 99(1)(a) EPC, contains the name and the address of the appellant as provided in Rule 41(2)(c) EPC and it is alleged that the identification is wrong due to an error, the true intention having been to file on behalf of the legal person which should have filed the appeal, is a request for substituting this other legal or natural person admissible as a remedy to "deficiencies" provided by Rule 101(2) EPC?
(2) If the answer is yes, what kind of evidence is to be considered to establish the true intention?
(3) If the answer to the first question is no, may the appellant's intention nevertheless play a role and justify the application of Rule 139 EPC?
(4) If the answer to questions (1) and (3) is no, are there any possibilities other than restitutio in integrum (when applicable)?