T 0420/03 (Cubicles/MAASLAND) du 10.05.2005
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T042003.20050510
- Date de la décision
- 10 mai 2005
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0420/03
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 94901058.1
- Classe de la CIB
- A01K 1/12
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- A construction for automatically milking animals
- Nom du demandeur
- MAASLAND N.V.
- Nom de l'opposant
- DeLaval International AB
Westfalia Landtechnik GmbH
Prolion B.V. - Chambre
- 3.2.04
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 106(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention R 64(b) 1973European Patent Convention R 65(1) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Additional decision of the opposition division regarding apportionment of costs
Appellant's request for cancellation of the apportionment of costs neither filed within the two-month appeal period nor covered by the extent of the appeal specified in the notice of appeal (inadmissible)
Clarity of the amendments
Admissibility of the amendments under Article 123 EPC
Remittal to the department of the first instance for consideration of the undecided issues - Exergue
- "The extent of the appeal within the meaning of Rule 64(b) EPC must be clear from the notice of appeal.
The statement setting out the grounds of appeal cannot in principle be used to complete, or amend, the extent of the appeal defined in the notice of appeal, if this statement is not filed within the two-month appeal period."
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The subject of appeal relating to the apportionment of costs is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside in so far as it relates to the revocation of the patent.
3. The case is remitted to the department of the first instance for further prosecution.