G 0003/99 (Admissibility of joint opposition or joint appeal/HOWARD FLOREY) of 18.2.2002

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2002:G000399.20020218
Date of decision: 18 February 2002
Case number: G 0003/99
Referral: T 0272/95
Application number: 83307553.4
IPC class: C12N 15/16
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 1006.459K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Molecular cloning and characterization of a further gene sequence coding for human relaxin
Applicant name: Howard Florey Institute of Experimental Physiology & Medicine
Opponent name: (01) Aglietta, Amendola et al.
(02) Paul Lannoye
Board: EBA
Headnote: 1. An opposition filed in common by two or more persons, which otherwise meets the requirements of Article 99 EPC and Rules 1 and 55 EPC, is admissible on payment of only one opposition fee.
2. If the opposing party consists of a plurality of persons, an appeal must be filed by the common representative under Rule 100 EPC. Where the appeal is filed by a non-entitled person, the Board of Appeal shall consider it not to be duly signed and consequently invite the common representative to sign it within a given time limit. The non-entitled person who filed the appeal shall be informed of this invitation. If the previous common representative is no longer participating in the proceedings, a new common representative shall be determined pursuant to Rule 100 EPC.
3. In order to safeguard the rights of the patent proprietor and in the interests of procedural efficiency, it has to be clear throughout the procedure who belongs to the group of common opponents or common appellants. If either a common opponent or appellant (including the common representative) intends to withdraw from the proceedings, the EPO shall be notified accordingly by the common representative or by a new common representative determined under Rule 100(1) EPC in order for the withdrawal to take effect.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 58
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 99
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 99(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 104
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 107
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 110(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 112(1)(a)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 133
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 133(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 134
European Patent Convention 1973 R 1
European Patent Convention 1973 R 26(2)(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 36(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 55
European Patent Convention 1973 R 55(a)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 56(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 60(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 66(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 100
European Patent Convention 1973 R 100(1)
Keywords: Admissibility - Fee for opposition - persons acting in common in filing notice of opposition - common opposition - joint opposition
Admissibility - Fee for appeal - persons acting in common in filing notice of appeal - common appeal - joint appeal
Common representative
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
G 0008/92
G 0003/97
G 0004/97
T 0025/85
T 0635/88
T 0665/89
T 0543/99
Citing decisions:
G 0002/04
G 0001/12
G 0001/13
J 0002/01
J 0019/13
R 0018/09
T 0272/95
T 0867/96
T 1018/98
T 0668/99
T 0074/00
T 1048/00
T 0228/01
T 0416/01
T 0553/01
T 0866/01
T 0983/01
T 0482/02
T 0315/03
T 0382/03
T 1165/03
T 1190/03
T 0991/04
T 1178/04
T 0004/05
T 0477/05
T 0480/05
T 1324/05
T 1035/06
T 1154/06
T 0755/09
T 1486/10
T 0854/12
T 0979/12
T 0562/13
T 1426/13
T 1654/13
T 2005/13
T 0205/14
T 0517/14
T 1954/14
T 0384/15

62 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

EPO Guidelines - D Opposition and Limitation/Revocation Procedures

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: III Amendments

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law