European Patent Office

J 0007/90 (Correction of designation) du 08.08.1991

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1991:J000790.19910808
Date de la décision
8 août 1991
Numéro de l'affaire
J 0007/90
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
88305201.1
Classe de la CIB
-
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
-
Titre de la demande
-
Nom du demandeur
Toledo
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.1.01
Sommaire

1. The Legal Board of Appeal upholds its case law under which the addition of a designation of a Contracting State by correction under Rule 88, first sentence, EPC is subject to a time limitation. Corrections can accordingly be made only if the request for correction is received by the EPO in sufficient time to enable publication of a warning together with the European patent application. This applies even where all other conditions to which such corrections are subject under Legal Board of Appeal case law have been met and, in particular, even where the applicant has requested correction immediately upon discovering his mistake (confirmation of past case law, e.g. in decisions J 12/80 (OJ EPO 1981, 143), J 3/81 (OJ EPO 1982, 100), J 21/84 (OJ EPO 1986, 75) and J 8/89 (1990 EPOR 57)).

2. However, the existing designation system and, in particular, the "precautionary designation" and Rule 85a EPC may give rise to legal problems. The system can only be developed further on the basis of legislation. The Convention gives competence to that end to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
EPC1973_R_088_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 79 1973
Mots-clés
Designations - correction of
Time limitation for corrections
Designation system: legal problems and potential development
Exergue
-
Affaires citées
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.