T 2473/12 () of 5.11.2013 | XEPC: EPC and PCT resource

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T247312.20131105

Date of decision:

05 November 2013

Case number:

T 2473/12

Application number:

05780357.9

IPC class:

C09J 183/00
C09J 11/06
G02B 6/36

Language of proceedings:

Distribution:

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 163Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

Adhesive compositions for optical fibers

Applicant name:

THE YOKOHAMA RUBBER CO., LTD.
Mitachi, Seiko

Opponent name:

Board:

3.3.09

Headnote:

(1) Under Rule 164(2) EPC an applicant is not entitled to limit the application to an invention covered only by the international search report and have the corresponding claims examined for patentability: T 1981/12 applied (points 3.5, 4.3 and 4.4 of the reasons).
(2) The effect of Rule 164(2) EPC whereby a national of a non-EPC contracting state may be obliged to file one or more divisional applications in order to obtain protection for subject matter not covered by the supplementary European search report does not amount to different national treatment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention (point 5.4 of the reasons).
(3) Under Rule 164(2) EPC an applicant who limits the application to an invention covered by the international search report but not to one covered by the supplementary European search report is not entitled to have a further search drawn up by the EPO (point 6 of the reasons).

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention R 164(2)
Paris Convention Art 2(1)

Keywords:

Applicant entitled to pursue subject-matter not covered by supplementary European search report (no)
Applicant entitled to have further search drawn up (no)
Conflict with Paris Convention (no)
Reimbursement of appeal fee (no)

Catchwords:

Cited decisions:

G 0003/92
G 0002/98
G 0002/08
J 0015/80
J 0006/05
T 1981/12

Citing decisions:

T 0557/13

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t122473eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021