| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T298519.20210303 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 03 March 2021 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2985/19 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 11805862.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K8/22 A61Q5/06 A61Q5/10 A61K8/365 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | HAIR COLOURING COMPOSITION COMPRISING GLUCONIC ACID AND/OR ITS SALTS | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Kao Germany GmbH | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Henkel AG & Co. KGaA | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.10 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. European patent EP 2 658 509 was revoked by the opposition division, and has lapsed in all designated states.
II. The patent proprietor is the sole appellant in these appeal proceedings.
III. In a communication, the board informed the parties of the lapse of the patent. Under Rule 84(1) EPC, the opposition appeal proceedings could be continued at the request of the opponent, but also upon request of the patent proprietor by way of an analogous application of Rule 84(1) EPC (T 520/10).
Unless such request was filed within two months, the appeal would be terminated without a decision on the merits, and the decision of the opposition division would become final.
IV. None of the parties requested continuation of the proceedings within this time limit.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
If a European patent has lapsed in all designated contracting states, opposition proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent (Rule 84(1) EPC).
According to Rule 100(1) EPC, this also applies in opposition appeal proceedings.
If the patent proprietor is the appellant, Rule 84(1) EPC has to be applied by analogy (T 520/10). In the present case, the patent proprietor could thus request that the appeal proceedings be continued.
2. No request in that respect was filed within the time limit set. The proceedings are thus terminated without a decision on the merits of the case (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th Ed. 2009, III.Q.1.2).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.
