| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T079893.19960620 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 20 June 1996 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0798/93 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 86440073.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B60P 3/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | FR | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | LOHR INDUSTRIE | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Monti, Umberto | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. Article 99(1) EPC, which enables "any person" to institute opposition proceedings, establishes the presumption that the real opponent is the person who has lodged the opposition. The EPC and its attendant provisions make no stipulation as to the opponent's personal circumstances or motives for acting. Requests that the opposition be declared inadmissible must therefore be refused if, as in the present case, they are based on objections regarding the opponent's personal circumstances, for example his profession (a professional representative before the EPO) or his field of technical expertise (different from that of the patent forming the subject of the opposition), or on objections concerning the opponent's motives for acting (statement by the opponent explaining that his only reason for acting was to supplement his professional training). 2. The presumption established by Article 99(1) EPC can only be set aside if proof is furnished, during the proceedings, that a third party has claimed to be the real opponent. In this event, to uphold the principle established by board of appeal jurisprudence that "oppositions must be filed and pursued ... so as to avoid ... uncertainty", the "person" in whose name the opposition was filed may be asked to assist in dispelling the doubt (see T 635/88). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Opposition filed by a professional representative acting on his own behalf and with the avowed purpose of supplementing his professional training Admissibility of opposition (yes) Presumption established by Article 99(1) EPC that the real opponent is the person who has lodged the opposition Proof that a third party is acting as the real opponent (no) Sworn statement (no; confirmation of decision T 635/88) Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t930798ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
21 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)