J 0010/87 (Retraction of withdrawal) of 11.2.1988

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1988:J001087.19880211
Date of decision: 11 February 1988
Case number: J 0010/87
Application number: 83105582.7
IPC class: B23K 35/30
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 476 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: -
Applicant name: Inland Steel
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.1.01
Headnote: A request for retraction of a withdrawal of the designation of a Contracting State filed after publication of the patent application may be allowable under Rule 88 EPC in appropriate circumstances, in particular if
(a) the public has not been officially notified of the withdrawal by the EPO at the time the retraction of the withdrawal is applied for;
(b) the erroneous withdrawal is due to an excusable oversight;
(c) the requested correction does not result in a substantial delay of the proceedings; and
(d) the EPO is satisfied that the interests of third parties who may possibly have taken notice of the withdrawal by inspection of the file are adequately protected.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 R 88
Keywords: Erroneous withdrawal
Retraction of withdrawal of the designation of a Contracting State
Legal certainty - protection of third parties
Fair proceeding before the EPO
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
J 0003/91
J 0004/97
J 0017/99
J 0004/03
J 0012/03
J 0019/03
J 0025/03
J 0037/03
J 0038/03
J 0014/04
J 0007/06
J 0008/06
J 0010/08
J 0018/10
J 0001/11
J 0022/12
J 0009/14
J 0002/15
J 0006/19
J 0008/19
T 0823/90
T 0972/93
T 0973/93
T 0824/00
T 1091/02
T 0079/07
T 0848/08
T 0579/16

32 references found.

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

EPO Guidelines - C Procedureal Aspects of Substantive Examination

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law Book: V Priority

General Case Law