T 0967/18 (Cancer therapy/BIOTEMPUS) of 14.03.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T096718.20230314
- Date of decision
- 14 March 2023
- Case number
- T 0967/18
- Online on
- 20 July 2023
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 09007539.1
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 Art 104(1)Abstract on EPC2000 R 142
- Application title
- Cancer therapy
- Applicant name
- Biotempus Pty Ltd
- Opponent name
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Board
- 3.3.04
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention R 115(2)European Patent Convention R 142(1)(b)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(3)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 016
- Keywords
- Admissibility of appeal - (no)
Apportionment of costs - severe negligence (no)
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (yes) - Catchword
- Where opposition proceedings have been interrupted under Rule 142(1)(b) EPC, acts done by the parties or the competent body of the EPO during the period of interruption are considered invalid.
An appeal against a decision taken during the interruption is inadmissible, because it has no valid subject eligible for a judicial review.
The RPBA also apply to requests for apportionment of costs under Article 104(1) EPC.
A negligent behaviour may also justify apportionment of costs. However, the negligence must be serious enough to be considered equivalent to wilful misconduct. - Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
- The appeal is inadmissible.
- The requests of the respondent (opponent) and the appellant (patent proprietor) for a different apportionment of costs under Article 104 EPC are refused.