European Patent Office

T 0210/89 (Re-establishment of rights by appellant opponent) du 20.10.1989

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T021089.19891020
Date de la décision
20 octobre 1989
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0210/89
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
81304345.2
Classe de la CIB
G01S 13/30
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
-
Nom du demandeur
Marconi
Nom de l'opposant
Hollandse Signaalapparaten B.V.
Chambre
3.5.01
Sommaire

1. An opponent (appellant) seeking to have his rights re- established under Article 122(1) EPC, cannot rely on the principle of "equality before the law" (applying Art. 125 EPC), where appeal is not in existence for procedural reasons: distinguishing G 1/86, "Re-establishment of rights of opponent/VOEST ALPINE" (OJ EPO 1987, 447). He is not entitled to have his rights re-established under Article 122(1) EPC when he misses the time limit for filing an appeal (Art. 108, 1st sentence, EPC).

2. The legal position of such an opponent/appellant differs from that of one whose appeal does exist, but whose statement of grounds of appeal is filed out of time: cf. G 1/86, "Re- establishment of rights of opponent/VOEST ALPINE" (OJ EPO 1987, 447).

3. Changes in the Rules of the EPC are non-retrospective (principle of legal certainty).

4. When the two-week period laid down by the President of the EPO pursuant to Rule 36(5) EPC in the decision dated 29 July 1987, OJ EPO 1987, 323* has not been observed, the appeal is deemed not to have been received.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
Decision President dated 29 July 1987EPC1973_Art_108_Sent_1European Patent Convention Art 122 1973European Patent Convention Art 125 1973European Patent Convention R 36(5) 1973
Mots-clés
Appeal not in existence
Re-establishment of rights - appellant as opponent
Principle of equality before the law
Exergue
-
Affaires citées
-

ORDER

For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. There is no appeal in existence.

2. The application for re-establishment of rights is rejected.

3. The decision of the first instance is confirmed in its entirety.

4. The appeal fee will be re-imbursed.