| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T036523.20250107 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 January 2025 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0365/23 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 10829142.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G16B 20/20 G16H 20/40 G16H 50/20 C12Q 1/68 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Non-invasive diagnosis of graft rejection in organ transplant patients | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | (1) Regimbeau (2) J A Kemp LLP |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor Basis of decision - (yes): patent revoked |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Opponent 2 (appellant) filed an appeal against the opposition division's interlocutory decision maintaining the opposed patent in amended form.
II. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal bet set aside and that the patent be revoked in its entirety.
III. In response to the board's preliminary opinion issued under Article 15(1) RPBA, the proprietor (respondent) declared, by its letter dated 3 January 2025, that it no longer approved the text in which the patent had been granted and would not be submitting any further requests.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO shall examine, and decide upon, the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
2. Such an agreement cannot be deemed to exist where - as in the present case - the proprietor expressly states that it no longer approves the text of the patent and will not be submitting an amended text.
3. Thus, there is no text of the patent on the basis of which the board can consider the appeal. In these circumstances, the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation of the patent, without examination as to patentability (see e.g. T 73/84, OJ EPO 1985, 241).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
