Gepubliceerd op maandag 4 juli 2011
IEF 9877
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Not to further the development

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal 27 juni 2011, Zaak R 0001/11 (Gemalto SA en XIRING tegen D. Molnia)

Octrooirecht. Overdracht van octrooi. Bewijs dat octrooi is overgedragen vóór verlopen van beroepstermijn. Tijdens beroepstermijn was er één octrooirechthebbende gemachtigd om beroep in te stellen. Beroep wordt geweigerd en bij het Enlarged Board worden (soort)gelijke vragen neergelegd o.a. Recht om gehoord te worden, tekortkomingen ex art. 112a(2)(d) en 104(b). Beroep wordt geweigerd,  'clearly unallowable'.

4. The question of uniformity of the application of the law also underlies the questions the Enlarged Board is asked by Petitioner I to answer. It is immediately apprent that they overlag the questions submitted to the Board of Appeal as a request for referaal to the Enlarged Board, which request was rejected by the Board of Appeal (see paragraph 3 above). The treatment of such questions pertains to a different procedure governed by a completely different legal framework an thus falls outside the ambit of the present proceedings (see Explanatory remarks to Article 112a EPC point 5 where it is clearly stated that the function of the petition for review is to remedy intolerable deficiens occurring in individual appeal proceedings, not to further the development of EPO procedural practice or to ensure the uniform application of law, OJ Special edition 4, 2007).

5. The Enlarged Board, after a careful scrutiny of the entire submission filed as a petition for review is unable to find anything which could correspond to a definition of a deficiency listed in Article 112a and Rule 104 EPC, let alone a deficiency in the decision. Furthermore, the Enlarged Board has no obligation to broach issues expressed through such general considerations that do not call for any legal answer (the time allocated to each party during oral proceeding for instance). It follows from the foregoing that, with respect to Petitioner I, the petition has to be rejected as being clearly unallowable.

Lees de beslissing hier (link / pdf)
Gemalto en Xiring acquisitie hier.