G 0002/22 (Competence of the European Patent Office to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under Article 87(1) EPC (Entitlement to priority)) du 10.10.2023
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000222.20231010
- Date de la décision
- 10 octobre 2023
- Numéro de l'affaire
- G 0002/22
- Requête en révision de
- T 2719/19 2022-01-28
- Numéro de la demande
- 16160321.2
- Classe de la CIB
- C07K 16/18A61K 39/395
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 087(1)
- Titre de la demande
- Prolongation of survival of an allograft by inhibiting complement activity
- Nom du demandeur
- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- -
- Sommaire
I. The European Patent Office is competent to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under Article 87(1) EPC.
There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with Article 88(1) EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is entitled to claim priority.
II. The rebuttable presumption also applies in situations where the European patent application derives from a PCT application and/or where the priority applicant(s) are not identical with the subsequent applicant(s).
In a situation where a PCT application is jointly filed by parties A and B, (i) designating party A for one or more designated States and party B for one or more other designated States, and (ii) claiming priority from an earlier patent application designating party A as the applicant, the joint filing implies an agreement between parties A and B allowing party B to rely on the priority, unless there are substantial factual indications to the contrary.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- - Accord v RCT [2017] EWHC 2711 (Ch)- Biogen/Genentech v. Celltrion, 30 July 2019- Edwards v Cook [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat)- Germany- TGI Valence of 16 February 1962, Ann. 1963, 313- The NetherlandsBundesgerichtshofCour de cassationDecisions of national courts citedEngland and Wales High Court, Patents CourtEuropean Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 118European Patent Convention Art 139(2)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 60European Patent Convention Art 61European Patent Convention Art 72European Patent Convention Art 76European Patent Convention Art 87European Patent Convention Art 88European Patent Convention Art 89European Patent Convention R 14European Patent Convention R 52European Patent Convention R 53FranceG.H.C. Bodenhausen, Guide to the Application of the Paris_Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property, BIRPI, Geneva 1968Gerechtshof Den HaagGermanyJ. Straus, The Right to Priority in Art 4a(1) of the Paris Convention, JIPLP 2019, 687Law of the Contracting StatesLiteratureParis Convention Art 004Paris Convention Art 019Patent Act Art 9Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 11(3)T. Bremi, A New Approach to Priority Entitlement: Time for Another Resolving EPO Decision, GRUR Int. 2018, 128The NetherlandsUnited Kingdom
- Mots-clés
- admissibility of the referral-(yes)
rephrasing of the referred questions-(yes)
competence of the EPO to assess entitlement to priority-(yes) - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- G 0003/92G 0003/93G 0001/97G 0002/98G 0002/04G 0001/15G 0001/19J 0015/80J 0019/87J 0011/95T 1008/96T 0998/99T 0015/01T 1329/04T 0005/05T 0062/05T 0788/05T 0063/06T 0493/06T 0382/07T 0577/11T 1933/12T 2357/12T 0205/14T 0517/14T 0725/14T 1201/14T 0239/16T 0419/16T 2431/17T 0844/18T 1946/21
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that the questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:
I. The European Patent Office is competent to assess whether a party is entitled to claim priority under Article 87(1) EPC.
There is a rebuttable presumption under the autonomous law of the EPC that the applicant claiming priority in accordance with Article 88(1) EPC and the corresponding Implementing Regulations is entitled to claim priority.
II. The rebuttable presumption also applies in situations where the European patent application derives from a PCT application and/or where the priority applicant(s) are not identical with the subsequent applicant(s).
In a situation where a PCT application is jointly filed by parties A and B, (i) designating party A for one or more designated States and party B for one or more other designated States, and (ii) claiming priority from an earlier patent application designating party A as the applicant, the joint filing implies an agreement between parties A and B allowing party B to rely on the priority, unless there are substantial factual indications to the contrary.