T 0736/95 (Fresh ground of opposition/AMGEN INC.) of 09.10.2000
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T073695.20001009
- Date of decision
- 9 October 2000
- Case number
- T 0736/95
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 83901979.1
- IPC class
- C07K 13/00
- 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
- (Met-1,des-Cys1,des-Tyr2,des-Cys3) interféron gamma humain et séquence d'ADN qui le code
- Applicant name
- AMGEN INC.
- Opponent name
- Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
- Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
From the Enlarged Board of Appeal case law, decisions G 10/91 and G 1/95 in particular, and the Guidelines for the examination in the EPO follows that the aim of the patent prosecution to avoid invalid patents comes to the foreground as far as proceedings before the first instance are concerned. By adding that the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not see any reason to change the practice of the first instance, it indicated that the first instance at least needs to examine whether a fresh ground is relevant. Therefore, before declaring it inadmissible, the opposition division should have examined under Article 114(1) EPC whether the ground raised under Article 100(c) EPC could prejudice the maintenance of the patent.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 102(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 55(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 66(1) 1973
- Keywords
- Admissibility of fresh ground of opposition - relevance
Obligation of opposition division to examine fresh ground of opposition for relevance
Remittal to first instance for further prosecution - yes
Referral to 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 first instance for further prosecution.