Übersetzung für "Aufrechterhaltung des patents" in Englisch

On an auxiliary basis it requested that the patent be maintained with:

Thus, the grounds of opposition and appeal do not prejudice maintenance of the patent.

The appellants requested that the patent be maintained, on the following basis:

The opposition division examines whether the grounds for opposition prejudice the maintenance of the European patent.

In order to maintain the patent, renewal fees must be paid in each designated state.

As main request, the patent proprietor requested that the patent be maintained as granted.

The appellants request that the contested decision be set aside and the patent be maintained.

The Respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed and the patent be maintained on the basis of the main or auxiliary request submitted during the oral proceedings.

The respondents requested that the appeal be dismissed and that the patent be maintained as granted.

20. Since none of the appellant's requests is allowable, the appeal must be dismissed.

Article 147 - Payments in respect of renewal fees for unitary patents

Note that each single condition mentioned above forms an individual legal basis for objection to the maintenance of the patent.

This appeal is from the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke European patent No.

In its currently valid form, therefore, the description is likewise suitable for maintaining the patent.

Maintenance of the patent with claims in accordance with Appendices 1, 2 and 4 is refused.

However, the legal situation is more complicated where several persons side with a party, which in practice generally occurs when the oppositions of several opponents are rejected or (as in the case mentioned above) the patent is maintained as amended on the basis of an alternative request by the patent proprietor (after one or more oppositions).

If the patentee was sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining his patent in amended form, neither the board of appeal nor the non-appealing opponent (as party to the proceedings as of right under Art.

The appellant requested that the contested decision be set aside and the patent maintained on the basis of the main requests filed on 3 August 1992 or on the basis of either one of auxiliary requests 1, 2 or 6 or 3 or 4 or 5 of which all but the third auxiliary request (labelled "Auxiliary Request 6") were filed on 3 August 1992.

Alternatively, they requested that the patent be maintained on the basis of the set of claims 1 to 9 as filed on 5 June 1996 and indicated as annex 3.

Where, in the factual circumstances underlying Question 1, a valid appeal is filed in due time in the name of the non-existent opponent company against the decision maintaining the European patent in amended form, and the restoration of the company to existence, with retroactive effect as described in Question 1, takes place after the expiry of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC, the Board of Appeal must treat the appeal as admissible.

This decision could only have been appealed as a whole and it was not open to the proprietor to appeal against the decision on the transfer of opposition status but not against the decision to maintain the patent in amended form.

If the patent proprietor is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, neither the board nor the non-appealing opponent as a party to the proceedings as of right may challenge the maintenance of the patent as amended in accordance with the interlocutory decision.

The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the following documents:

An appeal against this decision was lodged by the appellant, requesting that the decision under appeal be set aside, the patent maintained (unamended) and the appeal fee refunded.

A statement by the patent proprietor making it unambiguously clear that he no longer wishes his patent to be maintained is considered to be a request for its revocation, irrespective of the wording used (T 237/86).

According to point 1 of the Reasons for the Decision, if a patentee in opposition proceedings has had his request that the patent be maintained upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division, he may not file an appeal against reasoning in the decision which was adverse to him, because he is not adversely affected by the decision within the meaning of Article 107 EPC.

Where an opposition is filed by a company which subsequently, under the relevant national law governing the company, for all purposes ceases to exist, but that company is subsequently restored to existence under a provision of that governing national law, by virtue of which the company is deemed to have continued in existence as if it had not ceased to exist, all these events taking place before a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the opposed patent in amended form becomes final, the European Patent Office must recognize the retroactive effect of that provision of national law and allow the opposition proceedings to be continued by the restored company.