| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T075801.20010914 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 September 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0758/01 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 94200204.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23G 1/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Edible fat-containing composition in a substantially solid form for use in a non-frozen aqueous environment | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | CAMPINA MELKUNIE B.V. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Franz ZENTIS GmbH & Co Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Vevey COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods B.V. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Revocation of the European patent as consequence of the patentee's statement stating: | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In a decision given on 15 February 2001, with written reasons posted on 9 May 2001, the Opposition Division rejected the opposition filed against European patent No. 0 664 959 granted upon the subject-matter of European patent application No. 94 200 204.9.
II. On 5, 6 and 9 July 2001 the Appellants (Opponents 02, 03, and 04) respectively filed Notices of Appeal against this decision and each paid the appropriate fee on the same dates.
III. In a facsimile dated 23 July 2001 the representative of the Respondent (Proprietor of the patent) stated "The patentee ... no longer approves the text which was granted".
Reasons for the Decision
1. The Respondent made it clear through its representative that it no longer approves the text in which the patent was granted without submitting an amended text on which further prosecution of the appeal could be based. Therefore the patent must be revoked (Article 113(2) EPC; see also Decision T 73/84, OJ EPO 1985, 241).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision of the Opposition Division is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
