| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T088408.20100222 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 February 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0884/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 00973044.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B65D 79/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Beverage Container | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Nytrotec Beverages Ltd | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Unilever PLC | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Non-payment of renewal fees - lapse of patent - termination of the appeal proceedings | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Opposition was filed against European patent No. 1 226 078.
The opposition division decided to maintain the patent in amended form in accordance with the fifth auxiliary request.
II. The appellant (opponent) filed an appeal against that decision.
The proprietor did not file an appeal.
III. With a communication dated 14 September 2009 the parties were informed that the patent had been surrendered or lapsed in all the designated Contracting States. The opponent was informed that pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC the opposition proceedings could be continued if a corresponding request was filed within two months.
No such request was filed within this period.
IV. In a communication from the Registry of the Board dated 13 January 2010 the opponent/appellant was asked whether it wished continue the proceedings or whether the appeal proceedings could be terminated.
V. In its response dated 29 January 2010 the appellant indicated that it did not wish continuation of the proceedings and that the proceedings could be terminated.
Reasons for the Decision
1. According to Rule 84(1) EPC in combination with Rule 100(1) EPC the proceedings have to be terminated after the lapse of the European patent in all the designated Contracting States in the absence of a request by the opponent for continuation of the proceedings (see G 1/90, OJ EPO 1991, 275, point 7 of the reasons, special case of closure of the proceedings).
2. In the present case no such request has been filed so that the proceedings have to be terminated.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.
