T 1026/98 (Intervention/KALLE) du 13.06.2003
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T102698.20030613
- Date de la décision
- 13 juin 2003
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1026/98
- En ligne le
- 13 juin 2003
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 91108077.8
- Classe de la CIB
- B32B 27/34
- Langue de la procédure
- Allemand
- 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
- Mehrschichtige, schlauchförmige Verpackungshülle
- Nom du demandeur
- Kalle Nalo GmbH & Co. KG
- Nom de l'opposant
- Kureha Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
Intervenant 1 : Carsten Nicolaisen GmbH & Co. KG
Intervenant 2 : ALFANOVA Deutschland GmbH - Chambre
- 3.3.07
- Sommaire
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
I. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
II. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 105 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention R 57(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 60(2) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Intervention in appeal proceedings
Continuation of proceedings after withdrawal of the sole appeal
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - Exergue
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:
Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?