| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T154407.20100819 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 19 August 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1544/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 01310765.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07C 409/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Stabilized organic peroxidicarbonate compositions | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Arkema Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Degussa Initiators GmbH & Co. KG Akzo Nobel N.V. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.10 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | If the opponent and sole appellant deliberately refrains from invoking the prohibition of reformatio in peius against a claim request submitted by the Respondent/Patentee which extends the scope beyond that of the claims as maintained by the first instance, the Board does not see any reason why it should apply the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius of its own motion. Following the principle of party disposition any right protecting an appellant against an outcome that puts it in a worse position than if it had not appealed, may be waived (volenti non fit iniuria). | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Reformatio in peius - not examined by the Board of its own motion Extension of protection conferred (no) Inventive step (no) - obvious alternative |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t071544eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021