T 0210/89 (Re-establishment of rights by appellant opponent) of 20.10.1989
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T021089.19891020
- Date of decision
- 20 October 1989
- Case number
- T 0210/89
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 81304345.2
- IPC class
- G01S 13/30
- 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
- -
- Applicant name
- Marconi
- Opponent name
- Hollandse Signaalapparaten B.V.
- Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
1. An opponent (appellant) seeking to have his rights re- established under Article 122(1) EPC, cannot rely on the principle of "equality before the law" (applying Art. 125 EPC), where appeal is not in existence for procedural reasons: distinguishing G 1/86, "Re-establishment of rights of opponent/VOEST ALPINE" (OJ EPO 1987, 447). He is not entitled to have his rights re-established under Article 122(1) EPC when he misses the time limit for filing an appeal (Art. 108, 1st sentence, EPC).
2. The legal position of such an opponent/appellant differs from that of one whose appeal does exist, but whose statement of grounds of appeal is filed out of time: cf. G 1/86, "Re- establishment of rights of opponent/VOEST ALPINE" (OJ EPO 1987, 447).
3. Changes in the Rules of the EPC are non-retrospective (principle of legal certainty).
4. When the two-week period laid down by the President of the EPO pursuant to Rule 36(5) EPC in the decision dated 29 July 1987, OJ EPO 1987, 323* has not been observed, the appeal is deemed not to have been received.
- Relevant legal provisions
- Decision President dated 29 July 1987EPC1973_Art_108_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 122 1973European Patent Convention Art 125 1973European Patent Convention R 36(5) 1973
- Keywords
- Appeal not in existence
Re-establishment of rights - appellant as opponent
Principle of equality before the law - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. There is no appeal in existence.
2. The application for re-establishment of rights is rejected.
3. The decision of the first instance is confirmed in its entirety.
4. The appeal fee will be re-imbursed.