| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T016196.19971103 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 November 1997 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0161/96 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 87307406.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 37/36 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Stabilization of growth promoting hormones | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Mallinckrodt Group Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Novo Nordisk A/S Pharmacia & Upjohn AB Genentech, Inc. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. The requirements in connection with the principle of good faith to be observed by the EPO are the same vis-Ã -vis all parties involved in proceedings before the EPO, be they applicants, patent proprietors or opponents. II. In case it is assumed that even an underpayment of the opposition fee, which is solely due to a deficiency within the area of responsibility of the opponent concerned, may give rise to an obligation by the EPO to warn the opponent of the impending loss of rights, the requirements for the very existence of such an obligation imply that (i) the formalities officer of the opposition division receives a payment sheet, indicating said underpayment, from the cash and accounts department within the opposition period, that (ii) the payment of the lacking amount by the opponent on his own initiative before the end of the opposition period must objectively be excluded, and that (iii) the opponent can still pay the lacking amount within the opposition period. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Underpayment of more than 40% of the opposition fee - amount not small Act of informing an opponent within the meaning of Rule 69(2), second sentence EPC - not belonging to the duties entrusted to formalities officers of the opposition division Payment of the lacking amount not to be considered to have been made in time by virtue of the principle of good faith - no obligation placed on the opposition division to warn the appellant of the underpayment of the opposition fee Referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no) - only questions on a specific point of law, and not questions to individual cases which cannot be examined isolated from the respective facts, may be be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal Reimbursement of the opposition fee (yes) Opposition I deemed not to have been filed |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t960161ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
22 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)