| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T056122.20250107 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 January 2025 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0561/22 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 13809694.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 15/113 A61K 31/7088 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Modulation of UBE3A-ATS expression | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Baylor College Of Medicine |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| 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| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor Basis of decision - patent revoked |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 opponent's (appellant's) appeal is against the Opposition Division's interlocutory decision that European patent No. 2 864 479 (the patent) in the version of the main request and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC.
II. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and amended such that the patent be revoked.
III. In their reply, the patent proprietors (respondents) requested that the appeal be dismissed (main request), or that the patent be maintained on the basis of auxiliary requests.
IV. Oral proceedings were appointed for 14 January 2025.
V. In a submission dated 17 December 2024, the patent proprietors withdrew their approval of the text of the patent, and all outstanding requests including their request for oral proceedings, and stated that they would not attend the oral proceedings.
VI. In view thereof, the oral proceedings were cancelled.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to Art. 113(2) EPC, the European Patent Office decides upon the European patent only in the text submitted, or agreed, by the patent proprietor(s).
2. There is no such agreement if the patent proprietor(s), as in the present case, expressly withdraw the consent to the text of the patent as granted, and all requests on file (see section V.).
3. According to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, in these circumstances the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation of the patent, without going into substantive issues (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition 2022, IV.D.2; T 73/84, OJ EPO 1985, 241; T 1182/17; T 1226/18; T 1310/19; T 774/20; T 1361/21; T 1995/21).
4. Revocation of the patent is also the appellant's main request (see section II.). There are no remaining issues that need to be dealt with by the board in this appeal case, either. The decision can therefore be taken without holding oral proceedings.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
