| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T219111.20160315 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 15 March 2016 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2191/11 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 03728469.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | D04H 1/56 D04H 5/06 A47L 13/16 A47L 13/17 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | THREE-DIMENSIONAL COFORM NONWOVEN WEB | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | No text approved Revocation requested by the patent proptietor |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. By way of its interlocutory decision, the opposition division found that European Patent No. 1 504 145 as amended met the requirements of the European Patent Convention (EPC).
II. The appellant (opponent) filed an appeal against this decision, requesting that the decision of the opposition division be set aside and the patent be revoked. An auxiliary request for oral proceedings was made, for the case that the patent were not revoked.
III. The respondent (patent proprietor) requested dismissal of the appeal, or that the patent be maintained in amended form based on a first or second auxiliary request.
IV. With its communication following a summons to oral proceedings, the Board indicated its preliminary opinion on the case.
V. With letter of 25 February 2016, the respondent withdrew all its requests and also withdrew its approval of the granted text in any form. It also requested revocation of the patent.
VI. The planned oral proceedings were cancelled.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Article 113(2) EPC requires that the EPO may decide upon the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
2. If, as in the present case, the patent proprietor withdraws approval of any text upon which the patent can be maintained, there is no text upon which a decision to maintain the patent can be made. In accordance therewith, the European patent must be revoked (see also e.g. T 735/08).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
