T 1839/11 of 29.06.2012
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T183911.20120629
- Date of decision
- 29 June 2012
- Case number
- T 1839/11
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 05785170.1
- IPC class
- A23K 1/165A23K 1/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Enzyme granules
- Applicant name
- Novozymes A/S
- Opponent name
- DANISCO A/S
- Board
- 3.3.09
- Headnote
1. A document filed in proceedings and which serves the purpose of informing the public about the patent may not ordinarily be excluded from file inspection under Rule 144 EPC and Article 1(2) of the Decision of the President dated 12 July 2007 even though such inspection would be prejudicial to the legitimate personal or economic interests of natural or legal persons (Points 3.2 - 3.6).
2. Where a filed document contains information, some of which serves the purpose of informing the public about the patent but some of which does not, the filing of a version of the document in a form from which the latter information has been redacted may form the proper basis for an order excluding the unredacted document from file inspection under Rule 144 EPC, the redacted version being open to file inspection (Points 3.8 and 3.11).
- Relevant legal provisions
- Art 001(2)of the Decision President dated 12 July 2007European Patent Convention Art 128(4)European Patent Convention R 144(d)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
- Keywords
- Admissibility of new requests (no)
Exclusion from file inspection - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The following documents are ordered to be excluded from file inspection pursuant to Article 128 EPC, paragraph 4, and Rule 144(d) EPC:
(a) D46, appellant's disclosure documents, filed by the respondent on 3 April 2012;
(b) D46R, redacted version of D46 with commentary, filed by the respondent on 8 June 2012;
(c) D55, witness statement of Beth Fryksdale, filed by the appellant on 16 May 2012;
(d) D56, witness statement of Nathaniel Becker, filed by the appellant on 16 May 2012.