T 2003/08 (Dilated cardiomyopathy/EDWARDS) of 31.10.2012
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T200308.20121031
- Date of decision
- 31 October 2012
- Case number
- T 2003/08
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 96941378.0
- 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
- T 2003/08 2012-03-30
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Treatment of dilated cardiomyopathy by removal of autoantibodies
- Applicant name
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Reinke, Petra
Brehme, Stefan
Baumann, Gert
Felix, Stephan - Opponent name
- Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH
- Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 117European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 53(c)European Patent Convention Art 54(1)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(4)European Patent Convention Art 54(5) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 117European Patent Convention R 118(1)European Patent Convention R 118(2)(a)European Patent Convention R 118(2)(c)European Patent Convention R 120(1)
- Keywords
- "Request not to hear a witness due to failure to reply to the invitation in accordance with Rule 118(c) EPC (refused)";
"Request for referral of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (refused)";
Main request: added subject-matter (yes)
Auxiliary request: claims to be interpreted as relating to a second medical use (yes) - means used in the treatment to be considered as a substance or composition in the sense of decision G 5/83; oral disclosure at a lecture - evidence from the lecturer and a member of the audience may be sufficient to establish the oral disclosure - contrary to the application by the first instance of decision T 1212/97; oral disclosure and prior use - established beyond reasonable doubt (no); conformity of the claims with the requirements of the EPC (yes) - Catchword
- see points 6 to 21 and 30 to 48
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeals of both appellants are dismissed.