T 0798/93 (Identification of real opponent) of 20.06.1996
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T079893.19960620
- Date of decision
- 20 June 1996
- Case number
- T 0798/93
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 86440073.4
- IPC class
- B60P 3/08
- Language of proceedings
- French
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in French
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Convoi routier porte-véhicules à unité de chargement dissociable du châssis cabine
- Applicant name
- LOHR INDUSTRIE
- Opponent name
- Monti , Umberto
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
1. Article 99(1) EPC, which enables "any person" to institute opposition proceedings, establishes the presumption that the real opponent is the person who has lodged the opposition. The EPC and its attendant provisions make no stipulation as to the opponent's personal circumstances or motives for acting.
Requests that the opposition be declared inadmissible must therefore be refused if, as in the present case, they are based on objections regarding the opponent's personal circumstances, for example his profession (a professional representative before the EPO) or his field of technical expertise (different from that of the patent forming the subject of the opposition), or on objections concerning the opponent's motives for acting (statement by the opponent explaining that his only reason for acting was to supplement his professional training).
2. The presumption established by Article 99(1) EPC can only be set aside if proof is furnished, during the proceedings, that a third party has claimed to be the real opponent. In this event, to uphold the principle established by board of appeal jurisprudence that "oppositions must be filed and pursued ... so as to avoid ... uncertainty", the "person" in whose name the opposition was filed may be asked to assist in dispelling the doubt (see T 635/88).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 110(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 117(1)(g) 1973European Patent Convention Art 117(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123 1973European Patent Convention Art 133 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(d) 1973
- Keywords
- Opposition filed by a professional representative acting on his own behalf and with the avowed purpose of supplementing his professional training
Admissibility of opposition (yes)
Presumption established by Article 99(1) EPC that the real opponent is the person who has lodged the opposition
Proof that a third party is acting as the real opponent (no)
Sworn statement (no; confirmation of decision T 635/88)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) - Catchword
- -
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 instruction to maintain the patent on the basis of the amended claims and the relevant description, as filed during the oral proceedings, and the drawings in the original version as granted.