| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T162721.20240222 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 February 2024 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1627/21 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 14865506.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A01N 47/14 A01N 47/24 A01N 43/54 A01N 43/653 A01P 3/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SOYBEAN RUST | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | UPL Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | ADAMA Agricultural Solutions Ltd. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| 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| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor Basis of decision - patent revoked |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. The appeal lies from a decision of the opposition division rejecting the opposition filed against European patent No. 3 073 826.
II. The board summoned the parties to oral proceedings as requested and informed them of its preliminary opinion in a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA.
III. Oral proceedings before the board took place on 22 February 2024.
IV. During the oral proceedings, the patent proprietor stated that they no longer approved of the text of the patent as granted (claims and description) as well as of the claims of all auxiliary requests on file and that they expected the patent to be revoked.
Reasons for the Decision
1. According to the principle of party disposition established by Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO shall examine and decide on the European patent only in the text submitted to it or agreed upon by the proprietor of the patent.
2. In view of the patent proprietor's statement during the oral proceedings (point IV. above), there is no approved text on the basis of which the board could consider the appeal and examine whether a ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the patent. It is also no longer possible to take a decision as to substance because the absence of an approved text precludes any substantive examination of the alleged impediments to patentability (T 186/84, OJ 1986, 79, point 5 of the Reasons; T 646/08, point 4 of the Reasons and T 2434/18, point 4 of the Reasons)
3. According to the case law of the boards of appeal, in these circumstances the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation of the patent under Article 101 EPC without assessing issues relating to patentability since the patent proprietor no longer challenges the request for revocation of the opposed patent, and the patent cannot be maintained against the proprietor's will (see decision T 73/84, OJ EPO 1985, 241, and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition 2022, III.B.3.3).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
