| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T054816.20200117 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 January 2020 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0548/16 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06118876.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61F 13/00 A61K 31/485 A61K 9/70 A61P 25/04 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Sustained analgesia achieved with transdermal delivery of buprenorphine | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | EURO-CELTIQUE S.A. Mundipharma Laboratories GmbH Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals B.V. Mundipharma AB Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals Limited Norpharma A/S Mundipharma OY |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | Hexal AG Gallafent, Alison tesa Labtec GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Appeals were lodged by opponents 01 and 02 as well as by the patent proprietors (hereinafter "appellants-patent proprietors") against the decision of the opposition division announced at the oral proceedings on 10 November 2015 concerning maintenance of European Patent No. 1 731 152 in amended form.
II. In their letter dated 19 December 2019, the appellants-patent proprietors declared
(a) that they no longer approved the text in which the patent had been granted,
(b) that they would not be submitting an amended text,
and
(c) that they withdrew all requests on file.
III. The oral proceedings which had been arranged for 14 January 2020 were thereafter cancelled.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO shall examine, and decide upon, the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
2. Such an agreement cannot be deemed to exist where - as in the present case - the proprietor expressly states that it no longer approves the text of the patent as granted and withdraws all pending requests.
3. There is therefore no text of the patent on the basis of which the Board can consider the appeal. In these circumstances, the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation of the patent, without examination as to patentability (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 9th edition 2019, IV.D.2).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
