| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T186811.20150811 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 11 August 2015 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1868/11 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 01271850.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 31/4365 A61K 31/60 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | MEDICINAL COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING ASPIRIN | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited Ube Industries, Ltd. |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | Helm AG ratiopharm GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Withdrawal of all pending requests -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 revoking European patent No. 1 350 511.
II. The patent proprietors (appellants) lodged an appeal against this decision. In their statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellants requested that the decision of the opposition division be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or on the basis of one of the first to sixth auxiliary requests filed therewith.
III. Opponent 1 (respondent I) and opponent 3 (respondent II) both filed responses to the statement of grounds of appeal and requested that the appeal be dismissed.
IV. The board issued a summons to oral proceedings dated 18 May 2015 accompanied by a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA).
V. With its letter of 19 May 2015 the appellants filed new third and fourth auxiliary requests and renumbered the previously filed third to sixth auxiliary requests as fifth to eighth auxiliary requests, respectively.
VI. Oral proceedings took place on 11 August 2015. The appellants and respondent II were represented. Respondent I had informed the board that it would not attend. At the commencement of the oral proceedings the appellants and respondent I confirmed their requests on file.
VII. After the board had given the parties its view on the pending requests, the appellants declared that they withdrew all their pending requests.
Reasons for the Decision
The withdrawal of all pending requests in the appeal proceedings by the appellants can only mean that they also withdrew their agreement to the text of the patent as granted and to any amendment submitted during the proceedings in view of the maintenance of the patent in amended form. According to established case law of the boards of appeal, the withdrawal by the appellant, as the proprietor of a patent that has been revoked by the opposition division, of its agreement to any text for the maintenance of the patent is to be interpreted as the withdrawal of its appeal (see e.g. decisions T 1244/08 and T 2054/08). Consequently, the appeal proceedings are immediately and automatically terminated and the decision under appeal becomes final.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.
