T 0577/11 (Entitlement to priority) du 14.04.2016
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T057711.20160414
- Date de la décision
- 14 avril 2016
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0577/11
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 03793808.1
- Classe de la CIB
- F16L 15/06
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Threaded tube joint
- Nom du demandeur
- Tenaris Connections Ltd.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Vallourec Oil and Gas France
- Chambre
- 3.2.05
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- 1 Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 1Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents Art 7(1)Business distribution scheme of the Technical Boards of Appeal Art 3(1)Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Art 17Decision_AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under_Art_7of the Act revising the EPC_Art_001European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 113 1973European Patent Convention Art 116 1973European Patent Convention Art 118 1973European Patent Convention Art 150 1973European Patent Convention Art 21(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 60 1973European Patent Convention Art 61European Patent Convention Art 72 1973European Patent Convention Art 87(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 88(1)European Patent Convention R 106European Patent Convention R 38 1973European Patent Convention R 52(2)European Patent Convention R 52(5)European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 88(1)European Patent Convention R 97(1)Paris Convention Art 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 19Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 2(x), 8, 11(3), 27(5)PCT_R. 4(5)(d), 4.10(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 15(5)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 21Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 9
- Mots-clés
- Admission of late-filed documents - no
Re-opening of the debate
Rule 106 EPC objection - dismissed
Oral submissions by an accompanying person - yes
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - no
Validity of the priority - no
Admission of the second and third auxiliary requests - yes
Novelty - yes (second auxiliary request)
Inventive step - no (all requests)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee - no
Apportionment of costs - no - Exergue
- Further decisions cited:
European Court of Human Rights, Anheuser-Busch v Portugal, decision of 1 November 2007
German Federal Court of Justice, decision of 16 April 2013, X ZR 49/12, Fahrzeugscheibe
German Federal Patent Court, decision of 15 February 2012, 5 Ni 59/10 (EP), and decision of 28 October 2010, 11 W (pat) 14/09
Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 6 December 2012, I-2 U 46/12
German Imperial Patent Office, BlPMZ 1906, 127
High Court of Justice of England and Wales:
Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated, [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat);
KCI Licensing Inc. et al. v Smith & Nephew PLC et al., [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat);
HTC Corporation v Gemalto S.A., [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat);
Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. v Gilead Sciences Inc. et al., [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat)
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, decision of 3 November 2006, Nebula, NJ 2007, 155
Catchword:
1. Continuation of the appeal proceedings after first oral proceedings before the board with the scheduling of second oral proceedings is not, as such, a reason for admitting new submissions filed after the first oral proceedings (see Reasons, point 2.3).
2. If the debate on a particular topic had been closed without announcement of a decision on the matter, the board has discretion over whether or not it re-opens the debate and over the extent to which it does so (see Reasons, point 3.1).
3. For a claimed priority to be valid pursuant to Article 87(1) EPC 1973, the applicant of a subsequent application claiming priority from an earlier application (priority application) who is not the person who filed the priority application must, when the subsequent application is filed, be that person's successor in title in respect of the priority application or of the right to claim priority. A succession in title that occurs after the filing date of the subsequent application is not sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 87(1) EPC 1973 (see Reasons, point 6.5).
4. Where the applicant of the priority application and the applicant of the subsequent application contractually agree that (only) economic ownership ("economische eigendom" under Dutch law) of the priority application and the right to claim its priority is to be transferred to the subsequent applicant, this is not sufficient to consider the latter a successor in title within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC 1973 (see Reasons, point 6.6.2).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appellant's objection under Rule 106 EPC submitted in writing during the oral proceedings on 14 April 2016 is dismissed.
2. The appellant's request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
4. The appellant's request for a reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.
5. The appellant's request for a different apportionment of costs is refused.