| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T125422.20240315 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 15 March 2024 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1254/22 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 12004150.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04W 76/19 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Methods for synchronizing PDCP operations after PRC connection re-establishment in a wireless communication system and related apparatuses thereof | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | HTC Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Revocation of the patent - (yes): requested by the proprietor and no claims on file Decision in written proceedings - (yes): oral proceedings not expedient |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The opponent (appellant) filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division maintaining the patent in amended form in accordance with an "Eleventh Auxiliary Request".
II. The parties made the following requests:
- The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
- The proprietor (respondent) requested, as a main request, that the appeal be dismissed - i.e. that the patent be maintained in amended form in accordance with the "Eleventh Auxiliary Request" - or, in the alternative, that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the claims of a "Twelfth Auxiliary Request", filed during the second opposition proceedings.
III. In a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, the board provided its (negative) preliminary opinion on both claim requests under Article 56 EPC.
IV. In response to that communication, the respondent withdrew both claim requests and its request for oral proceedings. It further requested that the patent be revoked.
V. The board then cancelled the arranged oral proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The respondent withdrew all the claim requests present in these appeal proceedings and explicitly requested the revocation of the opposed patent.
2. It follows that there is no text agreed by the proprietor of the patent upon which the board could decide (cf. Article 113(2) EPC and T 677/90). Against this background, the patent is to be revoked.
3. In view of the above, the board does not consider holding oral proceedings to be expedient in this case (cf. Article 116(1) EPC). Thus, the board cancelled them and handed down the requested decision in written proceedings (cf. Article 12(8) RPBA).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
