G 0002/04 (Transfer of opposition/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) of 25.05.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:G000204.20050525
Date of decision: 25 May 2005
Case number: G 0002/04
Petition for review of: T 1091/02 2004-07-23
Application number: 92305862.2
IPC class: C12Q 1/68
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Methods for detection of carcinoma metastases by nucleic acid amplification
Applicant name: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG, et al.
Opponent name: (1) Akzo Nobel N.V.
(2) Vysis Inc.
Board: -
Headnote: (see Order)
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 105 1973 European Patent Convention Art 107 1973 European Patent Convention Art 108 1973 European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 134 1973 European Patent Convention Art 58 1973 European Patent Convention Art 99(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 101(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 101(4) 1973 European Patent Convention R 20 1973 European Patent Convention R 60(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 61 1973 European Patent Convention R 64(a) 1973 European Patent Convention R 65(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 88 1973
Keywords: Admissibility of the referral (yes)
Transfer of opponent status - free transfer (no) - transfer to subsidiary in whose interest the opposition was filed (no)
Correction of the appellant contrary to true intentions (no)
Auxiliary request concerning the person of the appellant in case of legal uncertainty
Catchword: -
Cited cases: G 0004/88 G 0009/91 G 0010/91 G 0008/92 G 0009/93 G 0001/97 G 0003/97 G 0003/99 J 0016/94 J 0027/94 T 0563/89 T 0659/92 T 0670/95 T 0298/97 T 0097/98 T 0964/98 T 0711/99 T 0009/00 T 0715/01 T 0854/02
Citing cases: G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0002/19 G 0001/22 G 0002/22 J 0037/03 J 0038/03 J 0017/12 T 0147/00 T 0416/00 T 1071/00 T 0136/01 T 0561/01 T 1086/02 T 1091/02 T 0207/03 T 0293/03 T 0345/03 T 0503/03 T 0956/03 T 1178/04 T 0006/05 T 0108/05 T 0659/05 T 0675/05 T 0677/05 T 0724/05 T 1421/05 T 0426/06 T 0875/06 T 1081/06 T 1206/06 T 1324/06 T 0391/07 T 0500/07 T 0993/07 T 1668/07 T 1697/07 T 0384/08 T 0445/08 T 0737/08 T 0960/08 T 1588/08 T 1790/08 T 1877/08 T 1145/09 T 1284/09 T 1938/09 T 1982/09 T 0128/10 T 0284/10 T 0518/10 T 1032/10 T 0184/11 T 0577/11 T 2136/11 T 0545/12 T 0796/12 T 0854/12 T 1138/12 T 2016/12 T 2357/12 T 1729/13 T 0615/14 T 0194/15 T 0219/15 T 0660/15 T 1001/15 T 1068/15 T 1415/16 T 2136/16 T 2707/16 T 0007/17 T 1493/17 T 0488/18 T 2212/18 T 2941/18 T 1012/19 T 2241/19 T 3273/19 T 1531/21 T 1029/23 T 1127/23 T 1286/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

I. (a) The status as an opponent cannot be freely transferred.

(b) A legal person who was a subsidiary of the opponent when the opposition was filed and who carries on the business to which the opposed patent relates cannot acquire the status as opponent if all its shares are assigned to another company.

II. If, when filing an appeal, there is a justifiable legal uncertainty as to how the law is to be interpreted in respect of the question of who the correct party to the proceedings is, it is legitimate that the appeal is filed in the name of the person whom the person acting considers, according to his interpretation, to be the correct party, and at the same time, as an auxiliary request, in the name of a different person who might, according to another possible interpretation, also be considered the correct party to the proceedings.