| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T031015.20180918 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 18 September 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0310/15 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 08168778.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07C 17/087 C07C 17/21 C07C 17/25 C07C 21/18 C07C 19/08 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Gas phase synthesis of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene from 2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propene | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Honeywell International Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Arkema France Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. de C.V. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.10 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decision - agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Appellants I and II (opponents 2 and 1, respectively) lodged an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting their opposition against European patent No. 2062866.
II. With a letter electronically filed on 17 September 2018 the Proprietor of the patent-in-suit (Respondent) informed the Board that it did not approve the text upon which the patent was granted and declared that it understood that the patent would be revoked and the oral proceedings scheduled for 6 December 2018 would be cancelled.
III. The Appellants requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeals are admissible.
2. In accordance with Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO can maintain a patent only on the basis of a text agreed by the proprietor of the patent.
3. The Proprietor of the patent indicated that it did not agree to the text of the patent as granted and did not propose any other text for the maintenance of the patent-in-suit in an amended form. Under such circumstances, where a fundamental requirement for maintaining the patent is lacking, the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation, without going into the substantive issues (settled jurisprudence of the boards, see inter alia decision T 73/84 OJ EPO 1985, 241).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
