T 0295/01 (Formalities officer duties/GLAXO) of 7.9.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T029501.20010907
Date of decision: 07 September 2001
Case number: T 0295/01
Application number: 94907826.5
IPC class: C12Q 1/68
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 26 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: Methods and diagnostic kits utilizing mammalian stress promoters to determine toxicity of a compound
Applicant name: PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, et al
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: Since the provision of point 6 of the Notice of the Vice-President of Directorate-General 2 of the EPO concerning "the entrustment to formalities officers of certain duties normally the responsibility of the Opposition Division of the EPO", dated 28 April 1999 (OJ EPO 1999, 506), conflicts with provisions of a higher level, ie Rules 9(3) and 56(1) EPC, the latter prevail in analogy with the provision of Article 164(2) EPC. Therefore the competence to decide on the inadmissibility of the notice of opposition lies with the opposition division and cannot be entrusted to a formalities officer.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 99(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 164(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 9(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 56(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 10
Keywords: Opposition procedure
Admissibility of opposition
Competence to decide
Formalities officer
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 1062/99
T 1101/99
Citing decisions:
G 0001/02
T 1048/00
T 0178/01
T 0749/02
T 2061/12

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t010295ex1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

11 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

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law