T 0998/99 (Skin equivalent/L'OREAL) of 15.09.2003
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T099899.20030915
- Date of decision
- 15 September 2003
- Case number
- T 0998/99
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 88400502.6
- IPC class
- A61L 27/00
- Language of proceedings
- French
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in French
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Equivalent de peau
- Applicant name
- L'OREAL
- Opponent name
- Organogenesis Inc.
- Board
- 3.3.02
- Headnote
I. Article 87(1) EPC does not provide for the possibility of filing several applications in respect of the same subject-matter and therefore of the same invention in one and the same country over the priority period on the basis of a single priority document.
As provisions governing exceptions are subject to strict interpretation, only the first filing may enjoy a right of priority.
II Neither Article 4G(1) of the Paris Convention nor the corresponding provision in the European Patent Convention (Article 76(1), second sentence) provide for a situation where a divisional filing can generate a priority right dating back to the filing date of the original application.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 87(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 88(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 88(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 89 1973European Patent Convention R 88 1973Paris Convention Art 4g1
- Keywords
- Validity of priority - no: Article 87(1) does not permit the same priority to be claimedover the priority period in respect of the filing in one and the same country of several applications concerning the same invention
Correction of error - no: the filing date of a divisional application cannot be replaced by that of the original application under Rule 88 EPC
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - no: the non-existence of case law is not a reason in itself - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- G 0003/93
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
3. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.