| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T119701.20051005 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 October 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1197/01 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 93924080.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23L 1/236 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Low Fat Spread | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | UNILEVER PLC/UNILEVER N.V. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | LEHERTE, Georges IP Management sprl | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | National patents lapsed in all designated States Termination of appeal proceedings |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This appeal lies from the decision of the Opposition Division dated 21 September 2001, rejecting the opposition against the European patent EP-B-0 666 716.
II. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 2 November 2001 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. The Statement setting out the Grounds of Appeal was filed with letter received on 28 December 2001.
III. In a letter dated 9 May 2005, the Respondent (Patent Proprietor) submitted "that the patent has lapsed in all contracting states".
IV. By a communication dated 30 June 2005, the Board notified the parties that the appeal proceedings would be closed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 60(1) EPC in combination with Rule 66(1) EPC, unless a request for continuation of the proceedings were filed by the Appellant/Opponent within two months.
V. A request for continuation of the proceedings was not filed.
Reasons for the Decision
1. After the lapse of a European patent for all the designated States and in the absence of a request for continuation of the proceedings, the proceedings are not continued (Rule 60(1) EPC in combination with Rule 66(1) EPC), ("special case" of closure of the opposition proceedings, see G 1/90, OJ EPO, 1991, 275, point 7, of the reasons)
2. In the present case, the Respondent stated that the patent has lapsed in all contracting States, and the Appellant has not requested the continuation of the proceedings.
Therefore, there is no legal basis for a continuation of the appeal proceedings.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.
