T 1307/17 - Assignment of priority

Key points

•  This decision was taken 16.11.2021 (published 10.03.2022). 
• The patent at issue was granted on a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application claiming the priority of a national French patent application. The applicants of the priority application and the PCT application were not the same.
• The Board, in machine translation: "  The priority of application FR 1057603 is validly claimed.  Documents I11 to I18 are admissible. [...] The applicants had raised their objections to the validity of the priority before the filing of exhibits I11 to I18. They did not submit any additional arguments in response. The Board, in the absence of any counter-argument taking into account the new evidence and explanations, is satisfied that these show that Alstom Technology Ltd was the successor in title within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC on the date of filing of the first application [note: perhaps the parent application? ]. The Respondent's explanations as summarized in the Statement of Facts and Conclusions make it possible to establish the flawless chain of transfers and agreements." 
• The file at the EPO does not include the PCT Request form (neither in the EPO file for the parent application). The PCT Request form can be found at WIPO and mentions two applicants, not being " Alstom Technology Ltd". The priority document shows yet another legal entity as the applicant. 
• On the PCT Request Form, the applicants are ALSTOM Grid SAS and another company. ALSTOM Grid SAS is not visible as an applicant in the file for FR 1057603.
• As a comment, Article L614-14, para 3, of the French IP Code provides that, in translation: " The French patent application or the French patent and the priority right for the filing of a European patent application cannot be transferred independently of each other." 
• However, whether the EPO has to apply French national law on this matter seems to be an open question as of yet. Moreover, I don't know if the French provision is supposed to apply to Euro-PCT applications as well.

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171307fu1.html

4. Validité de la revendication de priorité

4.1 La priorité de la demande FR 1057603 est valablement revendiquée.

4.2 Les justificatifs I11 à I18 sont recevables. La validité de la revendication de priorité a été contestée pour la première fois lors de la procédure orale devant la division d'opposition. Ceci justifie, au vu de l'article 12(4) RPCR 2007, applicable au recours en instance en vertu de l'article 25 RPCR 2020, le dépôt des moyens de preuve I11 à I18 avec la réponse de l'intimée aux mémoires de recours en date du 10 janvier 2018.

Les requérantes avaient soulevé leurs objections concernant la validité de la priorité avant le dépôt des justificatifs I11 à I18. Elles n'ont pas présenté d'arguments additionnels en réponse.

La Chambre, en l'absence de tout contre-argument tenant compte des nouveaux justificatifs et explications, est convaincue que ceux-ci montrent que la société Alstom Technology Ltd a été l'ayant cause au sens de l'article 87(1) CBE à la date de dépôt de la première demande. Les explications de l'intimée telles que récapitulées dans l'exposé des faits et conclusions permettent d'établir la chaîne de transferts et accords sans faille.