European Patent Office

T 1067/08 (High-activity phytase/BASF SE) of 10.02.2011

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T106708.20110210
Date of decision
10 February 2011
Case number
T 1067/08
Petition for review of
-
Application number
98934912.1
IPC class
C12N 9/00
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
High-activity phytase granulate
Applicant name
BASF SE
Opponent name
Syngenta Limited, European Regional Centre
NOVOZYMES A/S
AB Enzymes GmbH
Finnfeeds International Ltd
Board
3.3.09
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention R 116Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Keywords
Main request identical to sole request not admitted in opposition proceedings - not admitted (abuse of procedure)
Auxiliary requests - not admitted (withdrawn/should have been filed in first instance proceedings)
Catchword
Exercise of the powers under Article 12(4) RPBA is not conditional upon a party's conducting itself in bad faith or in a manner necessitating adjournment of the oral proceedings (points 3 and 5.3). Neither a party nor the department of first instance is at liberty to bring about the shifting of a case to the second instance as it pleases; such "forum shopping" would jeopardise the proper distribution of functions between the departments of first instance and the boards of appeal. Exercise of those powers may also be justified where a party's conduct - e.g. maintaining a single request which the opposition division had declined to admit into the proceedings as an abuse of procedure, and refusing to file amended and/or auxiliary requests - has in effect prevented the department of first instance from giving a reasoned decision on the critical issues, thereby compelling the board of appeal either to give a first ruling on those issues or to remit the case to the department of first instance (points 7.2 and 8.1).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.