| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T001809.20091021 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 21 October 2009 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0018/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96939612.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 15/12 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | NEUTROKINE alpha | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Main request - added subject-matter (no); extension of protection (no); clarity (yes); sufficiency of disclosure (yes); industrial application (yes); novelty (yes); inventive step (yes). | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
(1) In case of parallel proceedings before a national court and the Boards of Appeal, parties should inform both tribunals of the position as early as possible and ask the appropriate tribunal for acceleration in order to avoid duplication of proceedings. Whether acceleration is requested by one party, or both or all parties in agreement, or by a national court, all parties must accept a strict procedural framework including short time limits. It must also be understood that acceleration can have no effect on the equal treatment of all parties and cannot confer any advantage on any one party (see points 1 to 3 of the Reasons). (2) An objection of lack of industrial application (Article 57 EPC) requires the same standard of proof as an objection of insufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC), namely serious doubts substantiated by verifiable facts (see points 31 to 33 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t090018eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021