T 0369/91 (Detergent compositions) du 15.05.1992
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T036991.19920515
- Date de la décision
- 15 mai 1992
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0369/91
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 82200602.9
- Classe de la CIB
- C11D 3/37
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- T 0369/91 Detergent compositions/PROCTER & GAMBLE 1992-10-07
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Detergent composition containing performance additive and copolymeric compatibilizing agent therefor
- Nom du demandeur
- Procter & Gamble
- Nom de l'opposant
- Ciba-Geigy, Unilever, S.A. Camp
- Chambre
- 3.3.01
- Sommaire
1. In the case of the maintenance of the patent according to an auxiliary request of the patentee each party adversely affected by such decision of the Opposition Division may file an appeal against said decision ( Article 107, first sentence EPC).
2. Parties as of right to appeal proceedings (Article 107, second sentence, EPC) do not enjoy the same procedural rights as do parties who have lodged admissible appeals (following G 2/91, OJ EPO 1992, 206.
3. As a consequence, where the Opposition Division had maintained the patent in the amended form, the patentee who was only a party as of right to the appeal, cannot request a broader claim than was allowed by the Opposition Division. For the same reason such an opponent-respondent cannot request the revocation of the patent in its entirety.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 122 1973
- Mots-clés
- Cross-appeal
Late-filed statement of grounds of appeal
Re-establishment of rights refused
Cross-appellant's rights under Article 107 EPC to make requests considered in the light of G 2/91 (OJ EPO 1992,206) - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The Application for restoration of rights is disallowed.
The Applicant's (Patentee's) cross-appeal is inadmissible.