| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T032305.20070809 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 August 2007 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0323/05 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 93203163.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07J 73/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A process for the production of finasteride | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Merck & Co., Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Gedeon Richter Ltd. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Adaptation of the description after a decision to maintain the patent in amended form - consistent with the amended set of claims (yes) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Rule 57a EPC establishes a limit to the amendments which can be made to the patent in suit, namely the amendments must be occasioned by grounds of opposition specified in Article 100 EPC, even if the respective ground has not been invoked by the opponent. Article 84 and Rule 57a EPC are the two provisions which must guide the Proprietor of the patent when he is invited by the Opposition Division to adapt the description. In other words, the amendments must be appropriate and necessary, and nothing more (see point 3 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050323eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021