| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T039007.20081120 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 20 November 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0390/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97108764.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 9/06 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method of producing L-lysine | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Ajinomoto Co., Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | BASF Aktiengesellschaft | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. A claim request which was replaced by another request in proceedings before the opposition division because it was manifest that it would fail thereby avoiding a formal decision, and which was filed on appeal, was considered inadmissible (cf. points 1 to 3 of the Reasons). 2. A third party within the meaning of Article 115 EPC is not a party to any proceedings and has no more than an opportunity to "present observations", the admissibility of which is entirely a matter for the board (cf. points 4 to 7 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of the main request (no) Admissibility of experimental evidence submitted by a third party (no) Admissibility of a new document filed by a third party (no) Auxiliary request - extension of protection (no), clarity (yes), inventive step (yes), sufficiency of disclosure (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t070390eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021