European Patent Office

T 1789/22 (HCMV complexes/GLAXOSMITHKLINE) du 12.12.2024

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T178922.20241212
Date de la décision
12 décembre 2024
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1789/22
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
13736518.5
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
-
Titre de la demande
Complexes of cytomegalovirus proteins
Nom du demandeur
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
Nom de l'opposant
Appleyard Lees IP LLP / Fleck Barbara
Sanofi Pasteur
Chambre
3.3.04
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 107European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention R 80Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)
Mots-clés
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no)
Amendment occasioned by ground for opposition - (yes)
Amendment occasioned by ground for opposition - amendments allowable (yes)
Amendment to appeal case - justification by party (no)
Examination of own motion - appeal proceedings
Inventive step - (yes)
Exergue
1. For considerations about the object of appeal proceedings and the rights of a non-appealing party, see Reasons, points 1 to 4. The provisions of Article 107, second sentence, EPC guarantee a non-appealing party the right to participate to pending appeal proceedings. However, they do not provide it an autonomous right to have requests which go beyond the scope of the appeal as defined by the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal, decided by the board (as a direct consequence of G 2/91, Headnote). By not filing an appeal, a non-appealing party has not contested the findings of the opposition division, beyond the framework of the appeal filed by the appellant.
2. A proprietor cannot be expected to file an amended description in appeal proceedings until an allowable set of claims is found. The lack of an adapted description constitutes no obstacle to the admittance of an amended set of claims into the appeal proceedings (see Reasons points 6.3 and 6.4).
Affaires citantes
-

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of claims 1 to 10 of the main request, filed as auxiliary request 1 with the reply to the statement of grounds of appeal, a description and drawings possibly to be adapted thereto.