T 1596/14 of 19.11.2018
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T159614.20181119
- Date of decision
- 19 November 2018
- Case number
- T 1596/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 07860866.8
- IPC class
- F16L 47/28
- 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
- Connection assembly for the connecting of a cylindrical branch of a plastic pipe, and method for the attaching of a cylindrical branch to a plastic pipe
- Applicant name
- Wavin B.V.
- Opponent name
- Dyka B. V.
- Board
- 3.2.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 101(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 99(2) 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)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 appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Late-filed requests
Late-filed request - admitted (yes)
Amendments - new main request
Amendments - added subject-matter (yes)
Amendments - amended auxiliary request I
Amendments - allowable (yes)
Amended auxiliary request I - Novelty (yes)
Amended auxiliary request I - Inventive step (yes)
Apportionment of costs - (no) - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the following documents :
- claims 1 to 9 submitted during the oral proceedings,
- description pages 2 to 7 submitted during the oral proceedings,
- figures 1 to 13 of the patent specification.
3. The appeal of appellant II is dismissed.
4. The request for apportionment of costs of appellant II is refused.