Error message

Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).
Deprecated function: Optional parameter $type declared before required parameter $nid is implicitly treated as a required parameter in include_once() (line 1442 of includes/bootstrap.inc).

T 0084/16 (PAR-1 activation/TUFTS) of 27.1.2017

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T008416.20170127

Date of decision:

27 January 2017

Case number:

T 0084/16

Application number:

IPC class:

A61K 38/16
A61K 9/00
A61P 7/00

Language of proceedings:

EN

Distribution:

D

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 474Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

PAR-1 activation by metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1)

Applicant name:

Tufts Medical Center, Inc.

Opponent name:

-

Board:

3.3.04

Headnote:

-

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention Art 64(1)
European Patent Convention Art 65
European Patent Convention Art 97(1)
European Patent Convention Art 97(3)
European Patent Convention Art 98
European Patent Convention Art 107
European Patent Convention Art 106(1)
European Patent Convention Art 112(1)
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
European Patent Convention Art 128(4)
European Patent Convention R 71(3)
European Patent Convention R 71(5)
European Patent Convention R 71(6)
European Patent Convention R 71a(1)
European Patent Convention R 73
European Patent Convention R 74
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 111
European Patent Convention R 139
European Patent Convention R 140
European Patent Convention R 144(d)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 21
Decision President dated 12Â JulyÂ 2007 concerning documents excluded from file inspection

Keywords:

Admissibility of the appeal - (no)
Error in the patent specification - (yes)
Adversely affected by the grant decision - (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
Exclusions from file inspection - (yes)

Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:

G 0001/10
T 0150/89
T 0850/95
T 1145/09
T 1644/10

Citing decisions:

T 2248/16
T 0831/17

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t160084eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

26 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

X A.64 EPC Rights conferred by a European patent

X A.65 EPC Translation of the European patent

X A.97 EPC Grant or refusal

X A.98 EPC Publication of the specification of the European patent

X A.106 EPC Decisions subject to appeal

X A.107 EPC Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to appeal proceedings

X A.112 EPC Decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

X A.113 EPC Right to be heard and basis of decisions

X A.128 EPC Inspection of files

EPC Implementing Rules

X R.71 EPC Examination procedure

X R.71a EPC Rule 71a Conclusion of the grant procedure

X R.73 EPC Content and form of the specification

X R.74 EPC Certificate for a European patent

X R.101 EPC Rejection of the appeal as inadmissible

X R.111 EPC Form of decisions

X R.139 EPC Correction of errors in documents filed with the European Patent Office

X R.140 EPC Correction of errors in decisions

X R.144 EPC Parts of the file excluded from inspection

Offical Journal of the EPO

X OJ EPO 2019, A76 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board 3.5.03 of 25 February 2019 – T 831/17

Case Law Book: III Amendments

X CLR III L 5 Correction of printing errors in the publication of the patent specification

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

X CLR IV B 3.10 Entry into force of a decision to grant a European patent

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

X G 0001/10 (Request to correct patent/FISHER-ROSEMOUNT) of 23.7.2012

General Case Law

X T 0150/89 () of 29.4.1991

X T 0850/95 (Correction of decision to grant/US GYPSUM III) of 12.7.1996

X T 1644/10 (VersÃ¤umnis der Einspruchsfrist/UTISOL) of 26.10.2011

X T 0831/17 (Haar oder MÃ¼nchen als Ort der mÃ¼ndlichen Verhandlung) of 25.2.2019