| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T174418.20200625 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 25 June 2020 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1744/18 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06820561.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K9/06 A61K9/107 A61K47/10 A61P35/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | THERAPEUTIC COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING INGENOL-3-ANGELATE | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | LEO LABORATORIES LIMITED | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Sandoz AG Actavis PTC ehf Galenicum Health S.L. |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor Basis of decision - patent revoked |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. European patent No. 1 988 877 was granted on the basis of a set of 45 claims.
II. The patent was opposed under Article 100 (a), (b) and (c) EPC, on the grounds that the subject-matter of the granted patent lacked novelty and inventive step, was not sufficiently disclosed and its subject-matter extended beyond the content of the application as filed.
III. The present appeal by opponent 01 (hereinafter the appellant) lies from the decision of the opposition division finding that the patent in amended form met the requirements of the EPC.
IV. With a letter dated 17 June 2020, the respondent stated that it no longer approved the text in which European patent no. 1 988 877 was granted and that no amended text would be submitted. The respondent mentioned that it understood that the consequence would be revocation of the patent.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC, the European Patent Office shall decide upon the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
Such agreement is not deemed to exist if the patent proprietor, as in the present case, has expressly stated that it disapproved the text of the granted patent and stated that it would not submit an amended text.
There is therefore no text on the basis of which the board can maintain the patent. In these circumstances, the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation of the patent, without examination as to patentability.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
