| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1991:J001890.19910322 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 March 1991 | ||||||||
| Case number: | J 0018/90 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 89124087.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Canon | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.1.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. The express designation of a new Contracting State in a European patent application shortly before entry into force of the European Patent Convention for that state is no justification for deferring the filing date until the date of entry into force (cf. J 14/90, OJ EPO 1992, 505). However, such express designation may, after checking with the applicant, be interpreted as meaning that the applicant does not want a filing date earlier than the date on which the European Patent Convention enters into force for the state concerned. 2. In written proceedings before the European Patent Office and in its decision the Office may also use an official language other than the language of proceedings provided that all parties to the proceedings have given their agreement. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Filing date - later by interpretation Official language - other than language of proceedings in written procedure and decision |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j900018ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
7 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Case Law Book: III Amendments
XCLR III F 3 Derogations from the language of the proceedings in written proceedings and in oral proceedings