T 0615/14 of 27.10.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T061514.20151027
Date of decision: 27 October 2015
Case number: T 0615/14
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 04721828.4
IPC class: A23J 1/08 B01D 15/08 A23J 1/20
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: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: METHOD FOR HIGH THROUGHPUT VOLUMES IN THE FRACTIONATION OF BIO-MOLECULES BY CHROMATOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS
Applicant name: UPFRONT CHROMATOGRAPHY A/S
Opponent name: Campina Nederland Holding B.V.
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: EPC2000_R_139_(2007)_Sent_1European Patent Convention R 101(2)European Patent Convention R 77(2)
Keywords: Correction of error in the opponent's name
Catchword: A request to correct the designation of the opponent in the notice of opposition is allowable under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC provided that it complies with the principles endorsed in G 1/12, in particular that it reflects what was originally intended when filing the notice of opposition, that it does not give effect to a change of mind or development of plans and that it represents the opponent's actual rather than ostensible intention (reasons 1.2 to 1.5).
The original intention at the time of filing the opposition can also be established on the basis of evidence submitted after the expiry of the opposition period (reasons 1.7).
Cited cases: G 0002/04 G 0001/12 J 0008/80 T 0025/85 T 0590/94 T 0445/08
Citing cases: T 1226/13 T 1755/14 T 0603/15 T 0579/16 T 1367/17 T 1000/19 T 2644/19 T 1121/21

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The appellant's/opponent's request that the opponent's name and address on form 2300.1 filed on 26 March 2008 be corrected under Rule 139 EPC to Campina Nederland Holding B.V., Hogeweg 9, 5301 LB Zaltbommel (NL), is allowed.

3. The opposition and the appeal are admissible.

4. The respondent's request that certain questions be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.

5. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.