T 1946/21 of 05.05.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T194621.20230505
- Date of decision
- 5 May 2023
- Case number
- T 1946/21
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 14824211.8
- IPC class
- A61H 33/02E04H 4/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 Art 087(1)Abstract on Art 15a(2) RPBA 2020
- Application title
- INFLATABLE POOL
- Applicant name
- Intex Recreation Corp.
- Opponent name
- Bestway Europe S.p.a.
Bestway Deutschland GmbH - Board
- 3.2.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 87European Patent Convention R 131(1)Paris Convention Art 4a(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 014Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 15a(2)
- Keywords
- Novelty - main request (yes)
Inventive step - ex post facto analysis
Inventive step - main request (yes)
Inventive step - formulation of the technical problem
Priority - transfer of priority right
Priority - partial priority (yes)
Priority - validity of priority date (yes)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no) - Catchword
- 1. For the question of whether the applicant is "successor in title" within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC, it is sufficient for the applicant or patent proprietor to demonstrate that the assignment of the priority right was effective before the subsequent application was filed. The law does not set forth any other condition. In particular, the assignment need not be effective before the filing date of the subsequent application. (see point 2.3).
2. In the context of in-person oral proceedings, a request of a party for a hybrid format to allow the representatives to attend the hearing in person and other attendees to attend remotely should normally be granted only if the participation of the person for whom the access by means of videoconferencing technology has been requested is related to a person whose participation in the oral proceedings is relevant to the case, in particular to the decision to be taken at the oral proceedings (see point 1.).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The intervention is rejected.