T 0998/99 (Skin equivalent/L'OREAL) of 15.9.2003

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T099899.20030915
Date of decision: 15 September 2003
Case number: T 0998/99
Application number: 88400502.6
IPC class: A61L 27/00
Language of proceedings: FR
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 87 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: DE | EN | FR
Versions: OJ
Title of application: -
Applicant name: L'OREAL
Opponent name: Organogenesis Inc.
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: I. Article 87(1) EPC does not provide for the possibility of filing several applications in respect of the same subject-matter and therefore of the same invention in one and the same country over the priority period on the basis of a single priority document.
As provisions governing exceptions are subject to strict interpretation, only the first filing may enjoy a right of priority.
II Neither Article 4G(1) of the Paris Convention nor the corresponding provision in the European Patent Convention (Article 76(1), second sentence) provide for a situation where a divisional filing can generate a priority right dating back to the filing date of the original application.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 111(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 87(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 88(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 88(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 89
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 76(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 88
Paris Convention Art 4g1
Keywords: Validity of priority - no: Article 87(1) does not permit the same priority to be claimedover the priority period in respect of the filing in one and the same country of several applications concerning the same invention
Correction of error - no: the filing date of a divisional application cannot be replaced by that of the original application under Rule 88 EPC
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - no: the non-existence of case law is not a reason in itself
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
G 0003/93
Citing decisions:
T 0015/01
T 0925/03
T 0005/05
T 1562/06
T 0318/14

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t990998ep1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

10 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

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

Case Law Book: V Priority

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law