| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T034800.20001219 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 19 December 2000 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0348/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 90908068.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04N 7/173 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | VIDEO SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ON COMMAND VIDEO CORPORATION (a Delaware Corporation) | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | British Telecommunications public limited company | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Revocation of the patent at the request of all the parties (yes) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. On 20 March 2000 the opponent O2 filed an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division to maintain the patent in amended form. On 30. March 2000 also the proprietor filed an appeal against that decision.
II. On 25 May 2000 the patentee filed a statement of grounds of appeal and on 2 June 2000 the opponent in its statement of the grounds of appeal requested the revocation of the patent in its entirety.
III. On 7 December 2000 the proprietor's representative on behalf of the proprietor in a letter requested:
"I hereby withdraw the Appeal of the Patentee against the Decision of the Opposition Division in the above European patent.
Furthermore, with regard to the Appeal by the Opponent, the Patentee hereby requests revocation of the patent.
In accordance with the above requests, I look forward to receiving the final Decision of the Board of Appeal revoking the patent in the near future."
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeals are admissible.
2. It is established case law, that a request by a patent proprietor to revoke a patent has to be interpreted in the way, that the patent proprietor withdraws his consent to the granted text of the patent (or to any other text of the patent proposed before the revocation request made by him) and that any substantive examination of the alleged impediments to patentability is precluded (cf. T 186/84, OJ 1986, 79).
Since the patent proprietor in the present case has expressly requested revocation of his patent, there does not exist any text of the patent approved by him. All parties now request revocation of the patent. Thus, the patent has to be revoked in accordance with established case law.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
