Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?

In case T1063/18, the EPO Board 3.3.04 declared Rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) non-applicable due to a conflict with the interpretation of Art. 53 b) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, referring for that to Art. 164(2) EPC. Whether the Board had the competence do to so is discussed...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of intellectual property law & practice 2019-12
1. Verfasser: Hüttermann, Aloys
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Journal of intellectual property law & practice
container_volume
creator Hüttermann, Aloys
description In case T1063/18, the EPO Board 3.3.04 declared Rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) non-applicable due to a conflict with the interpretation of Art. 53 b) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, referring for that to Art. 164(2) EPC. Whether the Board had the competence do to so is discussed in this paper. We suggest that probably the Board has the competence to declare the non-applicability of Rule 28(2) inter partes, whereas the declaration of inadmissibility erga omnes is the privilege of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, whose involvement in this case would have been the legally more appropriate way to proceed.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jiplp/jpz140
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jiplp_jpz140</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1093_jiplp_jpz140</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c250t-6059f175cde2de7797352bcc6ff1d65c7d9ec9623c3f9a6adb20dd17aafce1863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kNFKwzAYhYMoOKd3PkAewLqkaRt7JWNMHQwUUbws6Z8_W0aXlCRT9OntNvHqnItzvouPkGvObjmrxWRj-66fbPofXrATMuKykBkvC3b630V-Ti5i3DBWDF2MSPxYe6oRrMZIraFpjQGpjVRR8M50FhJtMX0hOrrY9h1u0SXrVvQVV7tOJevdsHWaTkOy0A0Qf4DQ-S74HpWjLyoNFzrz7nN_9e7-kpwZ1UW8-ssxeX-Yv82esuXz42I2XWaQlyxlFStrw2UJGnONUtZSlHkLUBnDdVWC1DVCXeUChKlVpXSbM625VMoA8rtKjMnNkQvBxxjQNH2wWxW-G86avbDmIKw5ChO_u45jTw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Hüttermann, Aloys</creator><creatorcontrib>Hüttermann, Aloys</creatorcontrib><description>In case T1063/18, the EPO Board 3.3.04 declared Rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) non-applicable due to a conflict with the interpretation of Art. 53 b) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, referring for that to Art. 164(2) EPC. Whether the Board had the competence do to so is discussed in this paper. We suggest that probably the Board has the competence to declare the non-applicability of Rule 28(2) inter partes, whereas the declaration of inadmissibility erga omnes is the privilege of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, whose involvement in this case would have been the legally more appropriate way to proceed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1747-1532</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1747-1540</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpz140</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Journal of intellectual property law &amp; practice, 2019-12</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hüttermann, Aloys</creatorcontrib><title>Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?</title><title>Journal of intellectual property law &amp; practice</title><description>In case T1063/18, the EPO Board 3.3.04 declared Rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) non-applicable due to a conflict with the interpretation of Art. 53 b) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, referring for that to Art. 164(2) EPC. Whether the Board had the competence do to so is discussed in this paper. We suggest that probably the Board has the competence to declare the non-applicability of Rule 28(2) inter partes, whereas the declaration of inadmissibility erga omnes is the privilege of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, whose involvement in this case would have been the legally more appropriate way to proceed.</description><issn>1747-1532</issn><issn>1747-1540</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kNFKwzAYhYMoOKd3PkAewLqkaRt7JWNMHQwUUbws6Z8_W0aXlCRT9OntNvHqnItzvouPkGvObjmrxWRj-66fbPofXrATMuKykBkvC3b630V-Ti5i3DBWDF2MSPxYe6oRrMZIraFpjQGpjVRR8M50FhJtMX0hOrrY9h1u0SXrVvQVV7tOJevdsHWaTkOy0A0Qf4DQ-S74HpWjLyoNFzrz7nN_9e7-kpwZ1UW8-ssxeX-Yv82esuXz42I2XWaQlyxlFStrw2UJGnONUtZSlHkLUBnDdVWC1DVCXeUChKlVpXSbM625VMoA8rtKjMnNkQvBxxjQNH2wWxW-G86avbDmIKw5ChO_u45jTw</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Hüttermann, Aloys</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?</title><author>Hüttermann, Aloys</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c250t-6059f175cde2de7797352bcc6ff1d65c7d9ec9623c3f9a6adb20dd17aafce1863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hüttermann, Aloys</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of intellectual property law &amp; practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hüttermann, Aloys</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of intellectual property law &amp; practice</jtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><issn>1747-1532</issn><eissn>1747-1540</eissn><abstract>In case T1063/18, the EPO Board 3.3.04 declared Rule 28(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) non-applicable due to a conflict with the interpretation of Art. 53 b) by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, referring for that to Art. 164(2) EPC. Whether the Board had the competence do to so is discussed in this paper. We suggest that probably the Board has the competence to declare the non-applicability of Rule 28(2) inter partes, whereas the declaration of inadmissibility erga omnes is the privilege of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, whose involvement in this case would have been the legally more appropriate way to proceed.</abstract><doi>10.1093/jiplp/jpz140</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1747-1532
ispartof Journal of intellectual property law & practice, 2019-12
issn 1747-1532
1747-1540
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jiplp_jpz140
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
title Who decides if there is a conflict between Implementing Regulations and Articles of the European Patent Convention?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T10%3A49%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Who%20decides%20if%20there%20is%20a%20conflict%20between%20Implementing%20Regulations%20and%20Articles%20of%20the%20European%20Patent%20Convention?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20intellectual%20property%20law%20&%20practice&rft.au=H%C3%BCttermann,%20Aloys&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.issn=1747-1532&rft.eissn=1747-1540&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpz140&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1093_jiplp_jpz140%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true