European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T113797.20021014 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 14 October 2002 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 1137/97 | ||||||||
Application number: | 91203365.1 | ||||||||
IPC class: | A61K 39/255 | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | B | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | Cell free marek's disease virus vaccine | ||||||||
Applicant name: | Akzo Nobel N.V. | ||||||||
Opponent name: | American Home Products Corporation | ||||||||
Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
Headnote: | - | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
Keywords: | Transfer of opponent status - allowable (yes) Appeal by original opponent - filed before entry at EPO of transfer of opposition - admissible (yes) Appeal by transferee of opposition - filed before entry at EPO of transfer of opposition - admissible (no) Prior publication - date of receipt of journal in library - strength of presumptions based on circumstantial evidence Apportionment of costs (yes) - fixed amount awarded by board |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
1. A transfer of an opposition together with the relevant business assets in whose interests the opposition has been filed is allowable (following G 4/88). Where both the original opponent and the transferee each file an appeal before the transfer of the opposition has been notified to the EPO with supporting evidence of the transfer, the appeal of the original opponent is admissible, but the appeal of the transferee is inadmissible. The transferee however acquires the status of opponent and appellant as of the date when the EPO has been requested to make the transfer and has been supplied with adequate documentation evidencing the transfer. (Points 1 to 7). 2. The strength of the presumption in favour of the accuracy of a Received date marking appearing on the copy of a journal in a library as evidence of the actual date when the journal was made available to the public will depend on the library routine used. A handwritten date on the cover of a journal not accepted as correct in view of other evidence. (Points 8 to 14). 3. Relevant document belatedly introduced was allowed into the procedure. The belated submission was, however, considered to have caused unnecessary costs to be incurred, and so to make equitable an apportionment of costs in favour of respondent patentee. A fixed sum of Euro 2,500 was awarded by board of appeal itself, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC to avoid the need for an investigation of an exact amount which would be more burdensome for the parties. (Points 18 to 20). |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t971137eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021