G 0001/13 (Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY II) of 25.11.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:G000113.20141125
Date of decision: 25 November 2014
Case number: G 0001/13
Application number: 99906328.2
IPC class: B01J 33/00
B01J 23/75
C07C 1/04
B01J 37/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 170 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Process for producing fischer-tropsch catalysts
Applicant name: Sasol Technology (Proprietary) Limited
Opponent name: Formalities Bureau Limited
Board: EBA
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 99(1)
European Patent Convention Art 112(1)
European Patent Convention Art 121
European Patent Convention Art 122
European Patent Convention R 152(8)
"Peaktone Ltd v. Joddrell" Court of Appeal (England and Wales), [2012] EWCA Civ 1035
Keywords: Admissibility of referral (yes)
Opponent company ceasing to exist under national law
Retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law
Recognition by EPO of retrospective restoration of opponent company to existence under national law (yes)
Opposition proceedings to be continued by restored opponent company (yes)
Admissibility of appeal (yes)
Catchwords:

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

1. Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company.

2. Where, in the factual circumstances underlying Question 1, a valid appeal is filed in due time in the name of the non-existent opponent company against the decision maintaining the European patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to existence, with retroactive effect as described in Question 1, takes place after the expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC, the Board of Appeal must treat the appeal as admissible.

3. Not applicable.

Cited decisions:
G 0001/97
G 0003/97
G 0003/99
G 0002/04
G 0001/12
T 0635/88
T 0525/94
T 0353/95
T 0015/01
T 1091/02
T 0477/05
T 0480/05
Citing decisions:
G 0001/19
R 0017/14
T 0577/11
T 0796/12
T 1458/12
T 0205/14
T 0517/14
T 1201/14
T 1415/16

29 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law