T 0296/93 (HBV antigen production) of 28.07.1994

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T029693.19940728
Date of decision: 28 July 1994
Case number: T 0296/93
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 85201908.2
IPC class: C12N 15/51
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Recombinant DNA molecules and their method of production
Applicant name: BIOGEN
Opponent name: Murex Technologies
Institut Pasteur Etablissement public
Immuno Aktiengesellschaft
Hexal-Biochtech GmbH
Medeva PLC
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: The applicable starting point for calculating the three month period for intervention under Article 105(1) EPC is always the date of the institution of the first court action. Where a court action for infringement was first brought by a patentee against an alleged infringer, Article 105(1) EPC first sentence applies, even though the latter later instituted a court action seeking a declaration of non-infringement under Article 105(1) EPC second sentence, with regard to the same patent.
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 105(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973
Keywords: Admissibility of intervention of assumed infringer (no) - too late
Entitlement to priority (yes) - same invention
Citability of prior art document (no)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Enlarged Board - referral (no)
Catchword: -
Cited cases: G 0004/91 G 0001/94 T 0292/85 T 0081/87 T 0301/87 T 0381/87 T 0073/88 T 0595/90 T 0500/91 T 0886/91
Citing cases: J 0014/11 T 0694/92 T 0712/92 T 0923/92 T 0187/93 T 0195/93 T 0412/93 T 0475/93 T 0767/93 T 0207/94 T 0856/94 T 0078/95 T 0144/95 T 0193/95 T 0530/95 T 0639/95 T 0223/96 T 0188/97 T 0333/97 T 0400/97 T 0637/97 T 0018/98 T 0091/98 T 0148/98 T 0288/98 T 0342/98 T 0681/98 T 0111/00 T 0338/00 T 1143/00 T 0694/01 T 0948/01 T 0142/03 T 0225/03 T 0020/04 T 0313/05 T 0666/05 T 1213/05 T 1335/05 T 0418/07 T 0305/08 T 1545/08 T 2149/08 T 1959/12 T 0305/13 T 0304/17 T 1701/21 T 1809/22 T 0308/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The intervention is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claims 1 to 23 (non-AT States) and Claims 1 to 11 (AT) as filed in the oral proceedings.

4. The request for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.