T 0296/93 (HBV antigen production) du 28.07.1994

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T029693.19940728
Date de la décision: 28 juilliet 1994
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0296/93
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 85201908.2
Classe de la CIB: C12N 15/51
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Allemand
Anglais
Français
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: -
Titre de la demande: Recombinant DNA molecules and their method of production
Nom du demandeur: BIOGEN
Nom de l'opposant: Murex Technologies
Institut Pasteur Etablissement public
Immuno Aktiengesellschaft
Hexal-Biochtech GmbH
Medeva PLC
Chambre: 3.3.04
Sommaire: The applicable starting point for calculating the three month period for intervention under Article 105(1) EPC is always the date of the institution of the first court action. Where a court action for infringement was first brought by a patentee against an alleged infringer, Article 105(1) EPC first sentence applies, even though the latter later instituted a court action seeking a declaration of non-infringement under Article 105(1) EPC second sentence, with regard to the same patent.
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 105(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973
Mots-clés: Admissibility of intervention of assumed infringer (no) - too late
Entitlement to priority (yes) - same invention
Citability of prior art document (no)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Enlarged Board - referral (no)
Exergue: -
Affaires citées: G 0004/91 G 0001/94 T 0292/85 T 0081/87 T 0301/87 T 0381/87 T 0073/88 T 0595/90 T 0500/91 T 0886/91
Affaires citantes: J 0014/11 T 0694/92 T 0712/92 T 0923/92 T 0187/93 T 0195/93 T 0412/93 T 0475/93 T 0767/93 T 0207/94 T 0856/94 T 0078/95 T 0144/95 T 0193/95 T 0530/95 T 0639/95 T 0223/96 T 0188/97 T 0333/97 T 0400/97 T 0637/97 T 0018/98 T 0091/98 T 0148/98 T 0288/98 T 0342/98 T 0681/98 T 0111/00 T 0338/00 T 1143/00 T 0694/01 T 0948/01 T 0142/03 T 0225/03 T 0020/04 T 0313/05 T 0666/05 T 1213/05 T 1335/05 T 0418/07 T 0305/08 T 1545/08 T 2149/08 T 1959/12 T 0305/13 T 0304/17 T 1701/21 T 1809/22 T 0308/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The intervention is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claims 1 to 23 (non-AT States) and Claims 1 to 11 (AT) as filed in the oral proceedings.

4. The request for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.