T 1513/17 (Prolongation of survival of an allograft/ALEXION) of 28.01.2022
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T151317.20220128
- Date of decision
- 28 January 2022
- Case number
- T 1513/17
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 05779924.9
- IPC class
- C07K 16/18
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Prolongation of survival of an allograft by inhibiting complement activity
- Applicant name
- Alexion Pharamaceuticals, Inc.
- Opponent name
- Novartis AG
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG / Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. - Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- BGH 16 April 2013 case X ZR 49/12 (Fahrzeugscheibe)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 118European Patent Convention Art 153(2)European Patent Convention Art 87(1)European Patent Convention R 139European Patent Convention R 99(2)Gerechtshof Den Haag 30 July 2019ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:1962KCI Licensing Inc and others v. Smith & Nephew PLC and otherscase HC09c02624 of 23 June 2010Paris Convention Art 004Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 11(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Keywords
- Priority
Correction of error
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - Catchword
- The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention? - Cited cases
- G 0001/12J 0011/95T 1933/12T 0205/14T 1201/14T 0239/16T 0419/16T 0844/18T 2749/18T 2842/18T 0845/19
- Citing cases
- T 0419/16
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?