| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T018588.19890622 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 June 1989 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0185/88 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 81103329.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C08G 65/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Henkel | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Hoechst | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | Grounds for opposition are deemed to be in due form if the single printed publication (here: German patent specification) cited as evidence for the sole assertion of lack of inventive step, while itself being published after the filing or priority date, contains a reference to another publication (here: German unexamined application) published before the filing or priority date. | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of an opposition supported only by a subsequently published document | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880185ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
5 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
