T 1961/09 () of 26.6.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T196109.20130626
Date of decision: 26 June 2013
Case number: T 1961/09
Application number: 03812253.7
IPC class: B23C 5/22
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 563.392K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Applicant name: Iscar Ltd.
Opponent name: Kennametal Inc.
Sandvik Intellectual Property AB
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 105
European Patent Convention Art 112(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 64(a)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(2)
European Patent Convention R 41(2)(c)
European Patent Convention R 99(1)
European Patent Convention R 101(2)
European Patent Convention R 139
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - notice of appeal
Admissibility of appeal - name and address of appellant
Admissibility of appeal - after remedy of deficiencies
Novelty - main request (no)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - change of subject-matter
Late-filed auxiliary requests - adjournment of oral proceedings would have been required (yes)
Intervention of the assumed infringer - admissible (yes)

1. Where there is objectively a deficiency in the notice of appeal indicating a genuine error as regards the identity of the appellant and there is objective evidence in the file indicating with a sufficient degree of probability who the appellant should be, then the notice of appeal may be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC (see point 1.9 of the Reasons). The reference to the Enlarged Board in G 0001/12 by the Board in T 0445/08 does not bring into doubt the jurisdiction to correct an error in the notice of appeal in circumstances such as those in T 0097/98 (see point 1.14 of the Reasons).

2. While an intervention under Article 105 EPC shortly before oral proceedings in an appeal, raising new issues, will normally require the oral proceedings to be adjourned if not the remittal of the case altogether (G 0001/94), the oral proceedings may be continued if and so far as this can be done without unfairness to the other parties, in particular the proprietor (see points 2.2. and 2.3 of the Reasons).

Cited decisions:
G 0001/12
T 0097/98
T 0445/08
Citing decisions:

11 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

Case Law of the Enlarged Board