| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T003923.20240516 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 16 May 2024 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0039/23 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 18157435.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07D 401/04 A61K 31/4439 A61K 31/4184 A61P 35/00 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF AN ANDROGEN RECEPTOR MODULATOR | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | SANDOZ AG Scorpio IP Limited |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by the patent proprietors | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals of opponents 1 and 2 (hereinafter appellants 1 and 2) lie from the decision of the opposition division to reject the oppositions against European patent EP 3 348 553.
II. During oral proceedings before the board, held as scheduled in the presence of all parties on 16 May 2024, the patent proprietors withdrew their consent and agreement under Article 113(2) EPC to the text of the patent as granted and also withdrew all requests on file.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Under Article 113(2) EPC, the European Patent Office shall examine, and decide upon, the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
2. The patent proprietors withdrew their consent and agreement to the text of the patent as granted. Furthermore, all requests pending in the appeal proceedings were also withdrawn. Consequently, there is no text of the patent submitted or agreed by the proprietor of the patent, on the basis of which the board can consider compliance with the requirements of the EPC.
3. It is established case law of the Boards of Appeal
since decision T 73/84 (OJ EPO 1985, 241) that under
such circumstances, the patent is to be revoked without
further substantive examination.
4. There are also no further ancillary issues that need to be dealt with by the board in the present case.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
