| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T109506.20080507 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 May 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1095/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 00974679.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01J 20/10 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Silicate/aluminate materials | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | University of Greenwich | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Isolated mistake by representative - all due care (no) Special circumstances (no) Re-establishment (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
(1) The case law on "an isolated mistake in an otherwise satisfactory system" cannot be relied on to ignore a failure to act by the professional representative himself, unless there are special circumstances which make the failure to act compatible with taking all due care (see points 5 and 6). (2) A belief that an action has been performed for which there is no objective basis cannot be given any weight as a circumstance to be taken into account under Article 122(1) EPC (see point 8). (3) Neither the importance of an application to an applicant, nor the technical merit of the invention concerned, are circumstances that can be taken into account in favour of allowing re-establishment (see point 17). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061095eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021