T 1026/98 (Intervention/KALLE) of 13.06.2003
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T102698.20030613
- Date of decision
- 13 June 2003
- Case number
- T 1026/98
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 91108077.8
- IPC class
- B32B 27/34
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in German
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Mehrschichtige, schlauchförmige Verpackungshülle
- Applicant name
- Kalle Nalo GmbH & Co. KG
- Opponent name
- Kureha Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
Intervenant 1 : Carsten Nicolaisen GmbH & Co. KG
Intervenant 2 : ALFANOVA Deutschland GmbH - Board
- 3.3.07
- Headnote
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
I. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
II. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 105 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 57(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 60(2) 1973
- Keywords
- Intervention in appeal proceedings
Continuation of proceedings after withdrawal of the sole appeal
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?