(1) When a notice of appeal, in compli- ance with Rule 99(1)(a) EPC, contains the name and the address of the appel- lant as provided in Rule 41(2)(c) EPC and it is alleged that the identification is wrong due to an error, the true intention having been to file on behalf of the legal person which should have filed the appeal, is a request for substituting this other legal or natural person admissible as a remedy to "deficiencies" provided by Rule 101(2) EPC?
(2) If the answer is yes, what kind of evidence is to be considered to establish the true intention?
(3) If the answer to the first question is no, may the appellant's intention never- theless play a role and justify the appli- cation of Rule 139 EPC?
(4) If the answer to questions (1) and (3) is no, are there any possibilities other than restitutio in integrum (when applicable)?
The text of the referral in the English language is available on the EPO website under https://register.epo.org/espacenet/ application?documentId=ESTO8CZZ 1967154&number=EP99955620 &lng=en&npl=false.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal consid- ering the referral will be composed as follows: W. van der Eijk (chairman), G. Weiss, A. Clelland, R. Menapace, U. Oswald, A. Pzard, C. Rennie-Smith.
Third parties are hereby given the opportunity to file written statements in accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2007, 303 ff) in one of the official languages of the EPO (English, French or German).
To ensure that any such statements can be given due consideration they should be filed by the end of June 2012 with the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, quoting case number G 1/12.
Each statement should also be accom- panied by a list of cited documents and copies of any such documents not previously filed.
Date retrieved: May 20, 2014