Translation of "Prioritätsanspruch" in English

6. Claim to priority (see also F?VI)

If you fail to do so, you will lose your priority right.

For a valid claim to priority, the following conditions must be satisfied:

However, this withdrawal will have no effect on the priority claim of the parent application.

If WestLB were to be wound up, the Land would have a priority claim on Wfa's capital.

If the priority document or the application number is not submitted within that time limit, the priority right is lost.

If the indications are not provided in good time, the priority claim for this application shall be forfeited.

If the documentation is not submitted in good time, the priority claim for this application shall be forfeit.

Claim to priority (see also F-VI)

If the statements are not made in due time, the priority claim for the application shall be forfeited.

To the extent the priority claim is invalid, the effective date of the European application is the date of its filing.

The question of whether to publish scientific results early and then relinquish any claim to inventions based on them, or to initially withhold publication in order to avoid losing such a claim, while potentially losing the right of priority with regard to a discovery, for example, is a tricky dilemma that can involve losses.

Thus if the creditor was entitled to priority in respect of his debt in the event of the debtor's bankruptcy, the surety will be entitled to the same priority (2).

These stipulate that the right of priority shall be lost if the requirements concerning the claim to priority have not been satisfied.

On 24 March 1982, the Receiving Section of the EPO issued the decision under appeal, refusing the request for correction on the ground that at the time of filing the application there was no reference to a claim to priority.

Whether D57 and D58 are prior art thus boils down to whether the priority claim of the patent is invalid.

However, if any essential element of the invention for which a European patent is sought is missing, there is no right to priority.

The appellant expressed the view that the Enlarged Board should nevertheless provide an interpretation of Articles 54(3) and 76(1) EPC in this respect, particularly in order to make it clear that, contrary to what has been argued by the respondent, the assessment of priority entitlement for a parent and for a divisional application is not to be performed independently, because the divisional enjoys any right of priority of its parent, provided only that the divisional does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.

However, it is not possible to file request (ii) before request (i), because in this case request (ii) would be filed at a time when there is no priority claim, and it would not meet the requirements of Rule 56(3).

Neither the PCT nor the Paris Convention ruled out that a claim to priority could be held invalid if the "same invention" criterion was not met.

He defended the view that, with regard to mistakes in claiming priority, a distinction should be made between (a) mistakes made in a priority declaration concerning details of the date, State and file number of the previous application and (b) omission of a statement of date and State at the time of filing the European application.

In this event the Receiving Section shall inform the applicant that there will be no right of priority for the application unless, within one month, the applicant indicates a corrected date, lying within the year preceding the date of filing of the European patent application.

Since the earlier application the priority of which is claimed was filed on 24 September 2001 and the filing date of 1 October 2002 therefore fell after expiry of the 12-month period to be observed under Article 87(1) EPC, priority can be claimed effectively only if the conditions are met under which a European patent application may be deemed to have been filed within the priority period.