T 0892/94 (Deodorant compositions) of 19.01.1999
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T089294.19990119
- Date of decision
- 19 January 1999
- Case number
- T 0892/94
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 87902669.8
- IPC class
- A61K 7/32
- 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
- INHIBITEURS DE MICRO-ORGANISMES PRODUCTEURS D'ESTERASE, DESTINES A ETRE UTILISES PRINCIPALEMENT DANS LES DEODORANTS
- Applicant name
- Robertet S.A.
- Opponent name
- Unilever N.V.
- Board
- 3.3.02
- Headnote
I. The right to be heard of a party absent in oral proceedings as expounded in G 4/92 (OJ EPO 1994, 149) may, in appropriate circumstances, be surrendered by a party declaring that it will take no further part in the proceedings (Reasons 2.2-2.5).
II. According to G 2/88 (OJ EPO 1990, 93), novelty within the meaning of Article 54(1) EPC can be acknowledged for a claim directed to the use of a known substance for a hitherto unknown, ie new, non-medical purpose reflecting a newly discovered technical effect. However, a newly discovered technical effect does not confer novelty on a claim directed to the use of a known substance for a known non-medical purpose if the newly discovered technical effect already underlies the known use of the known substance (Reasons 3.4).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention R 71(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 71(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Novelty of a claim directed to the known use of a known substance which differs from the state of the art merely by the indication of a newly discovered technical effect underlying that use (no)
Violation of right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC when a decision to revoke the patent is taken in the absence of the proprietors from oral proceedings after they had declared that they would take no further part in the proceedings (no) - Catchword
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0189/95T 0186/98T 0319/98T 0717/98T 0198/00T 0496/00T 0966/00T 0486/01T 0836/01T 0943/01T 1269/01T 0034/02T 0259/02T 0326/02T 1090/02T 0503/03T 1020/03T 0060/04T 0669/04T 0816/05T 1379/09T 1782/10T 1539/14T 2090/15T 0189/18T 1673/18T 3272/19T 0638/21T 1504/21T 1913/21T 0149/22T 0152/22T 2192/22
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.