European Patent Office

T 1961/09 du 26.06.2013

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T196109.20130626
Date de la décision
26 juin 2013
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1961/09
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
03812253.7
Classe de la CIB
B23C 5/22
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
TANGENTIAL CUTTING INSERT AND MILLING CUTTER
Nom du demandeur
Iscar Ltd.
Nom de l'opposant
Kennametal Inc.
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB
PALBIT S.A.
Chambre
3.2.06
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Admissibility of appeal - notice of appeal
Admissibility of appeal - name and address of appellant
Admissibility of appeal - after remedy of deficiencies
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - change of subject-matter
Late-filed auxiliary requests - adjournment of oral proceedings would have been required (yes)
Intervention of the assumed infringer - admissible (yes)
Exergue
1. Where there is objectively a deficiency in the notice of appeal indicating a genuine error as regards the identity of the appellant and there is objective evidence in the file indicating with a sufficient degree of probability who the appellant should be, then the notice of appeal may be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC (see point 1.9 of the Reasons). The reference to the Enlarged Board in G 0001/12 by the Board in T 0445/08 does not bring into doubt the jurisdiction to correct an error in the notice of appeal in circumstances such as those in T 0097/98 (see point 1.14 of the Reasons).
2. While an intervention under Article 105 EPC shortly before oral proceedings in an appeal, raising new issues, will normally require the oral proceedings to be adjourned if not the remittal of the case altogether (G 0001/94), the oral proceedings may be continued if and so far as this can be done without unfairness to the other parties, in particular the proprietor (see points 2.2. and 2.3 of the Reasons).
Affaires citantes
T 1841/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.