| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T164323.20250627 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 27 June 2025 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1643/23 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 08251088.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C10M 141/06 C10M 141/10 C10M 169/04 C10M 133/12 C10N 10/12 C10N 30/00 C10N 40/25 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Lubricating oil compositions comprising a biodiesel fuel and an antioxidant | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Chevron Oronite Company LLC | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Afton Chemical Corporation | ||||||||
| 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| Keywords: | Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor Basis of decision - patent revoked |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 of the opponent (appellant) lies from the decision of the opposition division to reject the opposition against European patent 2 055 762.
II. The appellant requested that the contested decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked in its entirety.
III. The board summoned the parties to oral proceedings as requested and set out its preliminary opinion in a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA.
IV. With letter dated 6 June 2025, the patent proprietor (respondent) stated that it no longer approved of the text in which the patent was granted, and thereby withdrew all requests, including the main request (patent as granted) and all auxiliary requests. It also stated that it did not intend to submit any further requests and that it understood that oral proceedings would be cancelled and a decision revoking the patent would be issued.
V. Oral proceedings before the board scheduled for 3 July 2025 were cancelled.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to 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. In view of the respondent's statement (point IV, above), there is no approved text on the basis of which the board could consider whether a ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted or whether an amended text complies with the patentability requirements. Hence, it is no longer possible to take a decision as to the patent in substance because the absence of an approved text for the patent precludes any substantive examination of the alleged impediments to patentability. No other issues than the validity of the patent had to be considered by the board in this appeal case.
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 without assessing issues relating to patentability. This is because the respondent no longer challenges the appellant's request for revocation. A European 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.
