Further decisions cited:

European Court of Human Rights, Anheuser-Busch v Portugal, decision of 1 November 2007

German Federal Court of Justice, decision of 16 April 2013, X ZR 49/12, Fahrzeugscheibe

German Federal Patent Court, decision of 15 February 2012, 5 Ni 59/10 (EP), and decision of 28 October 2010, 11 W (pat) 14/09

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 6 December 2012, I-2 U 46/12

German Imperial Patent Office, BlPMZ 1906, 127

High Court of Justice of England and Wales:

Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Incorporated, [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat);

KCI Licensing Inc. et al. v Smith & Nephew PLC et al., [2010] EWHC 1487 (Pat);

HTC Corporation v Gemalto S.A., [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat);

Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. v Gilead Sciences Inc. et al., [2014] EWHC 3916 (Pat)

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, decision of 3 November 2006, Nebula, NJ 2007, 155

Catchword:

1. Continuation of the appeal proceedings after first oral proceedings before the board with the scheduling of second oral proceedings is not, as such, a reason for admitting new submissions filed after the first oral proceedings (see Reasons, point 2.3).

2. If the debate on a particular topic had been closed without announcement of a decision on the matter, the board has discretion over whether or not it re-opens the debate and over the extent to which it does so (see Reasons, point 3.1).

3. For a claimed priority to be valid pursuant to Article 87(1) EPC 1973, the applicant of a subsequent application claiming priority from an earlier application (priority application) who is not the person who filed the priority application must, when the subsequent application is filed, be that person's successor in title in respect of the priority application or of the right to claim priority. A succession in title that occurs after the filing date of the subsequent application is not sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 87(1) EPC 1973 (see Reasons, point 6.5).

4. Where the applicant of the priority application and the applicant of the subsequent application contractually agree that (only) economic ownership ("economische eigendom" under Dutch law) of the priority application and the right to claim its priority is to be transferred to the subsequent applicant, this is not sufficient to consider the latter a successor in title within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC 1973 (see Reasons, point 6.6.2).