|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T001501.20040617|
|Date of decision:||17 June 2004|
|Case number:||T 0015/01|
|IPC class:||A61K 39/12|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Causative agent of the mystery swine disease, vaccine compositions and diagnostic kits|
|Applicant name:||Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek|
|Opponent name:||Cyanamid Iberica
Akzo Nobel N.V.
|Headnote:||1. The same priority right may be validly claimed in more than one European patent application; there is no exhaustion of priority rights (see points 25 to 41 of the reasons).
2. Rule 20(3) EPC does not apply in the context of universal successions in law. The universal successor of a patent applicant or patentee automatically acquires party status in proceedings pending before the European Patent Office (see points 4 to 12 of the reasons).
3. Neither Rule 57a nor Article 123(3) EPC is infringed if a patent proprietor files a separate set of claims for a specific contracting state in opposition proceedings in order to take into account that, due to a reservation made under Article 167(2)(a) EPC, product claims as granted would be considered invalid in this state (see points 17 to 21 of the reasons).
|Relevant legal provisions:|
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal (yes) - party status of universal successor of original patentee (yes) - correction of wrong designation of appellant (allowed)
Allowability of amendments: new set of claims for ES/GR (yes)
Broadening of scope of protection (no)
Priority (yes) - doctrine of exhaustion of priority (no)
Novelty and inventive step (yes)
Date retrieved: 30 December 2018
41 references found.Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO 2016, A87 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.06 dated 17 July 2015 - T 557/13