European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1998:J002695.19981013 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 13 October 1998 | ||||||||
Case number: | J 0026/95 | ||||||||
Application number: | 88903612.5 | ||||||||
IPC class: | G01D 5/26 | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | A | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | Motion Sensor | ||||||||
Applicant name: | VPL Research, Inc. | ||||||||
Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
Board: | 3.1.01 | ||||||||
Headnote: | 1. Assessing whether there are documents satisfying the European Patent Office that a transfer has taken place in accordance with Rule 20(1) and (3) EPC and making the entry in the register is the responsibility of the relevant department of first instance. Accordingly, in appeal proceedings, substitution of another party for the original applicant, is possible only once the relevant department of first instance has made the entry or where there is clear-cut evidence of a transfer (point 2). 2. In the absence of specific circumstances having been shown in the case under consideration, proceedings against the applicant under Chapter 11 "Reorganization" of Title 11 - Bankruptcy - of the United States Code do not interrupt proceedings before the European Patent Office within the meaning of Rule 90(1)b) EPC (point 4.4). 3. Where time limits expiring independently of one another have been missed by the applicant, each resulting in the application being deemed withdrawn, a request for re-establishment has to be filed in respect of each unobserved time limit. In accordance with Article 122(3), second sentence, EPC, a fee for re-establishment has to be paid in respect of each request. It is irrelevant whether the requests for re-establishment are filed in the same letter or in different letters and whether they are based on the same or different grounds (point 5.2). |
||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
Keywords: | Change of party - no - Rule 90(1)(b) interruption - no - Chapter 11 US-Bankruptcy Code - re-establishment - two time limits missed - two requests and fees due - all due care - denied |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j950026ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
34 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - E General Procedural Matters
EPO Guide for Applicants, part II Int. - C The EPO as ISA and SISA
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
XOJ EPO 2014, A76 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06 dated 24 February 2014