European Patent Office

T 1067/08 (High-activity phytase/BASF SE) du 10.02.2011

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T106708.20110210
Date de la décision
10 février 2011
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1067/08
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
98934912.1
Classe de la CIB
C12N 9/00
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
High-activity phytase granulate
Nom du demandeur
BASF SE
Nom de l'opposant
Syngenta Limited, European Regional Centre
NOVOZYMES A/S
AB Enzymes GmbH
Finnfeeds International Ltd
Chambre
3.3.09
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention R 116Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Mots-clés
Main request identical to sole request not admitted in opposition proceedings - not admitted (abuse of procedure)
Auxiliary requests - not admitted (withdrawn/should have been filed in first instance proceedings)
Exergue
Exercise of the powers under Article 12(4) RPBA is not conditional upon a party's conducting itself in bad faith or in a manner necessitating adjournment of the oral proceedings (points 3 and 5.3). Neither a party nor the department of first instance is at liberty to bring about the shifting of a case to the second instance as it pleases; such "forum shopping" would jeopardise the proper distribution of functions between the departments of first instance and the boards of appeal. Exercise of those powers may also be justified where a party's conduct - e.g. maintaining a single request which the opposition division had declined to admit into the proceedings as an abuse of procedure, and refusing to file amended and/or auxiliary requests - has in effect prevented the department of first instance from giving a reasoned decision on the critical issues, thereby compelling the board of appeal either to give a first ruling on those issues or to remit the case to the department of first instance (points 7.2 and 8.1).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.