| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1985:T023084.19851016 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 16 October 1985 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0230/84 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 79900558.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Cationic electrocoating method | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Kansai Paint Co.Ltd. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Revocation/at the instigation of the patent proprietor | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In a decision dated 8 May 1984 the Opposition Division rejected the oppositions which had been filed against European patent No. 0 018 416 granted upon the subject- matter of European patent application No. 79 900 558.2, and maintained the patent unamended.
II. The opponent Stollack AG lodged an appeal against this decision on 26.09.84, paid the appeal fee on 20.09.84 and filed the Statement of Grounds on 22.11.84.
The opponent BASF Farben and Fasern AG lodged an appeal on 27.09.84, paid the appeal fee on 27.09.84 and filed the Statement of Grounds on 05.12.84.
III. In a letter dated 10 June 1985 the patent proprietor stated that he no longer approved of the text in which the patent was granted with the intent that the patent should be revoked.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Both appeals comply with Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 64 EPC and are therefore admissible.
2. The Board cannot decide whether the appeals are wholly or partially justified. The patent proprietor withdrew his approval of the text of the patent as granted during the appeal proceedings. There is therefore no text of the patent on the basis of which the Board can consider the appeal: under Article 113(2) EPC the European Patent Office must consider the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the proprietor of the patent.
3. Since the text of the patent is at the disposition of the patent proprietor, a patent cannot be maintained against the proprietor's will. If the patent proprietor withdraws his approval, expressed before the first instance, of the text of the patent as granted with the intent that the patent should be revoked, it may be inferred that he wishes to prevent any text whatever of the patent from being maintained.
4. However, the patent proprietor cannot terminate the proceedings by telling the EPO that he is surrendering the European patent, since this is not provided for in the Convention. Thus he would only be able, as far as national law permitted, to surrender the patent vis-à-vis the national patent offices of the designated Contracting States under the relevant national law.
5. At the same time, the proceedings ought to be terminated as quickly as possible in the interests of legal certainty, which calls for a clarification of the industrial rights situation. The only possibility in such a case is to revoke the patent, as envisaged for other reasons in Article 102 EPC (see decision T 73/84 dated 26.04.85 to be published in Official Journal 8/1985,p.241).
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that :
The contested decision is set aside and the patent revoked.
