| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T096699.20021203 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 December 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0966/99 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 92112711.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61F 13/15 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Clean dry facing needled composite | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | McNEIL-PPC, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | SCA MOLNLYCKE AB | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | Rule 66(2) EPC implies that a decision should be reasoned in so far as the issues to be decided are concerned. Therefore, if the patent proprietor withdraws a request for maintenance of the patent on the basis of a set of claims, there is no longer a procedural basis for the Board to include reasons in the decision concerning the withdrawn request (point 7.1). Rule 76(1) EPC does not require the Board to include statements, which are no longer directly related to the requests on file, in the minutes of oral proceedings for the sole purpose of providing ammunition to the opponent in possible future infringement proceedings. The exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts for infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 64(3) EPC should not be prejudiced by opinions and interpretations submitted during the appeal proceedings when they no longer relate to the patent in the form in which it is upheld by the Board (point 7.2.3). A common practice of drafting the minutes of oral proceedings based on Rule 76(1) EPC has been established by the Boards of appeal from which practice the minutes drawn up by the present Board do not deviate. The present situation therefore does not give rise to a question of non-uniform application of the law under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (point 7.3.1). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of the appeal (yes) Admendments - admissible (yes) Novelty (yes) Inventive step (yes) Request to include in the decision certain reasoning in respect of the non-allowability of a request withdrawn by the patentee - rejected Request to include in the minutes of oral proceedings the statements made by the parties concerning the withdrawn request - rejected Referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - rejected |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t990966eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021