T 0844/18 (CRISPR-Cas/BROAD INSTITUTE) of 16.01.2020
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T084418.20200116
- Date of decision
- 16 January 2020
- Case number
- T 0844/18
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 13818570.7
- IPC class
- C12N 15/63
- 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
- Engineering of systems, methods and optimized guide compositions for sequence manipulation
- Applicant name
- The Broad Institute, Inc.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
President and Fellows of Harvard College - Opponent name
- Schlich, George
Grund, Dr., Martin
Regimbeau
CRISPR Therapeutics AG
Storz, Dr. Ulrich
Novozymes A/S
Boxall Intellectual Property Management Limited
Sagittarius Intellectual Property LLP
Adams, Harvey Vaughan John - Board
- 3.3.08
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- Accord Healthcare -v- Research Corporation Technologies [2017] EWHC 2711 (Ch)European Convention on Human Rights Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 54(3) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 60(3) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 87(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 87(2) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 87(3) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 88(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 90(3) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 90(5) (2007)European Patent Convention R 52 (2007)European Patent Convention R 53 (2013)KCI Licensing -v- Smith & Nephew [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat)Notice from the President of the EPO dated 26 January 1996 concerning priority conferring effect of the "US provisional application for a patent"Paris Convention_Art. 4A, 4A(1), 4A(2), 4A(3), 4D, 4D(1), 4D(4), 4F, 4G, 19PCT_Art. 8(1), 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b)Riendeau -v- Zehnder Group International AG, Swiss Federal Patent Court, 21 March 2018The Constitution of the United States Art. VI, clause 2VCLTIO_Art. 31(1), 33(4)
- Keywords
- Priority - main request (no)
Novelty - main request (no) - Catchword
- i) The board is empowered to and must assess the validity of a priority right claim as required by Article 87(1) EPC,
ii) the board's interpretation of the expression "any person" in Article 87(1) EPC confirms the long-established "all applicants" or the "same applicants" approach,
iii) the national law does not govern who is "any person" as per Article 87(1) EPC, the Paris Convention determines who "any person" is.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.