T 0578/14 of 25.04.2017
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T057814.20170425
- Date of decision
- 25 April 2017
- Case number
- T 0578/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 06824382.3
- IPC class
- B27K 3/36A01N 55/08
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- WOOD TREATMENT
- Applicant name
- Harrower, Norma Ellen Lilette
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- blankDecision_President_dated 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations_Art_001(2)European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 116(1)European Patent Convention Art 119European Patent Convention Art 120(b)European Patent Convention Art 122European Patent Convention Art 125European Patent Convention Art 133European Patent Convention Art 134European Patent Convention R 101(1)European Patent Convention R 115(1)European Patent Convention R 115(2)European Patent Convention R 126(1)European Patent Convention R 126(2)European Patent Convention R 131(4)European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 152European Patent Convention R 99(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(5)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(6)
- Keywords
- Representation - authorisation remains effective vis-à-vis the EPO if or for as long as termination of authorisation is not communicated to the EPO
Representation - intention to change the representative is not sufficient
Party not resident in EPC contracting state - submissions concerning its representation are taken into account
Nothing in the EPC which prevents EPO from communicating with party not resident in EPC contracting state
Cancellation of oral proceedings (yes)
Admissibility of appeal - statement of grounds
Admissibility of appeal - filed within time limit (no)
Re-establishment of rights - exceptional means of judicial remedy, not a usual way of extending an initial time limit
Re-establishment of rights - unable to observe time limit because change of representative intended (no)
Re-establishment of rights - due care on the part of the applicant (no)
Re-establishment of rights - principle of proportionality (yes)
General principles - protection of good faith and legitimate expectations
General principles - fiduciary responsibility
General principles - prohibition against venire contra factum proprium - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0001/86G 0005/88G 0002/97J 0003/87J 0027/88J 0031/89J 0027/90J 0027/92J 0003/93J 0010/93J 0005/94J 0014/94J 0027/94J 0002/02J 0017/03J 0019/04J 0006/07J 0012/07J 0004/10J 0013/11J 0007/12T 0191/82T 0287/84T 0213/89T 0250/89T 0030/90T 0413/91T 0667/92T 0381/93T 0840/94T 0428/98T 0079/99T 0717/04T 1401/05T 0552/06T 1026/06T 0263/07T 1465/07T 1984/07T 1908/09T 0592/11
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for re-establishment of rights is rejected.
2. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.