T 0967/18 (Cancer therapy/BIOTEMPUS) du 14.03.2023
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T096718.20230314
- Date de la décision
- 14 mars 2023
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0967/18
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 09007539.1
- Classe de la CIB
- A61K 39/00G01N 33/574A61P 35/00G01N 33/68
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Non distribuées (D)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 104(1)Résumé de EPC2000 R 142
- Titre de la demande
- Cancer therapy
- Nom du demandeur
- Biotempus Pty Ltd
- Nom de l'opposant
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Chambre
- 3.3.04
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention R 115(2)European Patent Convention R 142(1)(b)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016
- Mots-clés
- Admissibility of appeal - (no)
Apportionment of costs - severe negligence (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes) - Exergue
- Where opposition proceedings have been interrupted under Rule 142(1)(b) EPC, acts done by the parties or the competent body of the EPO during the period of interruption are considered invalid.
An appeal against a decision taken during the interruption is inadmissible, because it has no valid subject eligible for a judicial review.
The RPBA also apply to requests for apportionment of costs under Article 104(1) EPC.
A negligent behaviour may also justify apportionment of costs. However, the negligence must be serious enough to be considered equivalent to wilful misconduct. - Affaires citantes
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
- The appeal is inadmissible.
- The requests of the respondent (opponent) and the appellant (patent proprietor) for a different apportionment of costs under Article 104 EPC are refused.