Key points
- The opponent requested a correction of the designation of the opponent because the former name of the opponent had been used, even after a merger of companies (more precisely: the name of the former opponent, after a transfer of opposition by universal succession because of a merger). The Board, in translation: 1.2 In addition, the correction requested by opponent 5 under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC is to be granted since the conditions defined in point 37 of the reasons of decision G 1/12 (OJ EPO 2014, A114) are met. It can be seen from documents A1 to A3 that the real intention of the parties involved was to file the appeal and carry out the subsequent procedural steps on behalf of the universal successor. In addition, opponent 5 filed its request for correction by letter dated March 12, 2020, i.e. immediately after the incorrect designation of opponent 5 had been criticized by the patent proprietor."
" Since a request for correction of the opponent's designation in opposition proceedings is to be granted under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC if it complies with the principles set out in G 1/12 (see T 1755/14, point 4.1 of the Reasons) and an allowable correction under Rule 139 EPC is retroactive (G 1/12, point 37 of the Reasons), all procedural acts of Opponent 5 since the merger of Nilit Plastics Europe GmbH with Celanese Sales Germany GmbH are deemed to have been carried out on behalf of Celanese Sales Germany GmbH. ... Consequently, Opponent 5's name is to be corrected to "Celanese Sales Germany GmbH" and Opponent 5's appeal is admissible."
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2023/01/t-294118-request-for-correction.html
