G 0002/04 (Transfer of opposition/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) du 25.05.2005

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:G000204.20050525
Date de la décision: 25 mai 2005
Numéro de l'affaire: G 0002/04
Requête en révision de: T 1091/02 2004-07-23
Numéro de la demande: 92305862.2
Classe de la CIB: C12Q 1/68
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Allemand
Anglais
Français
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: -
Titre de la demande: Methods for detection of carcinoma metastases by nucleic acid amplification
Nom du demandeur: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG, et al.
Nom de l'opposant: (1) Akzo Nobel N.V.
(2) Vysis Inc.
Chambre: -
Sommaire: (see Order)
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 105 1973 European Patent Convention Art 107 1973 European Patent Convention Art 108 1973 European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 134 1973 European Patent Convention Art 58 1973 European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 101(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 101(4) 1973 European Patent Convention R 20 1973 European Patent Convention R 60(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 61 1973 European Patent Convention R 64(a) 1973 European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 88 1973
Mots-clés: Admissibility of the referral (yes)
Transfer of opponent status - free transfer (no) - transfer to subsidiary in whose interest the opposition was filed (no)
Correction of the appellant contrary to true intentions (no)
Auxiliary request concerning the person of the appellant in case of legal uncertainty
Exergue: -
Affaires citées: G 0004/88 G 0009/91 G 0010/91 G 0008/92 G 0009/93 G 0001/97 G 0003/97 G 0003/99 J 0016/94 J 0027/94 T 0563/89 T 0659/92 T 0670/95 T 0298/97 T 0097/98 T 0964/98 T 0711/99 T 0009/00 T 0715/01 T 0854/02
Affaires citantes: G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0002/19 G 0001/22 G 0002/22 J 0037/03 J 0038/03 J 0017/12 T 0147/00 T 0416/00 T 1071/00 T 0136/01 T 0561/01 T 1086/02 T 1091/02 T 0207/03 T 0293/03 T 0345/03 T 0503/03 T 0956/03 T 1178/04 T 0006/05 T 0108/05 T 0659/05 T 0675/05 T 0677/05 T 0724/05 T 1421/05 T 0426/06 T 0875/06 T 1081/06 T 1206/06 T 1324/06 T 0391/07 T 0500/07 T 0993/07 T 1668/07 T 1697/07 T 0384/08 T 0445/08 T 0737/08 T 0960/08 T 1588/08 T 1790/08 T 1877/08 T 1145/09 T 1284/09 T 1938/09 T 1982/09 T 0128/10 T 0284/10 T 0518/10 T 1032/10 T 0184/11 T 0577/11 T 2136/11 T 0545/12 T 0796/12 T 0854/12 T 1138/12 T 2016/12 T 2357/12 T 1729/13 T 0615/14 T 0194/15 T 0219/15 T 0660/15 T 1001/15 T 1068/15 T 1415/16 T 2136/16 T 2707/16 T 0007/17 T 1493/17 T 0488/18 T 2212/18 T 2941/18 T 1012/19 T 2241/19 T 3273/19 T 1531/21 T 1029/23 T 1127/23 T 1286/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

I. (a) The status as an opponent cannot be freely transferred.

(b) A legal person who was a subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates cannot acquire the status as opponent if all its shares are assigned to another company.

II. If, when filing an appeal, there is a justifiable legal uncertainty as to how the law is to be interpreted in respect of the question of who the correct party to the proceedings is, it is legitimate that the appeal is filed in the name of the person whom the person acting considers, according to his interpretation, to be the correct party, and at the same time, as an auxiliary request, in the name of a different person who might, according to another possible interpretation, also be considered the correct party to the proceedings.