| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T042686.19870708 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 08 July 1987 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0426/86 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 79104214.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Polycarbonates with improved age resisting properties | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Allied Corp. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Revocation of European patent at request of proprietor | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Notice of opposition to the European patent No. 0 012 203 was filed on 10 September 1983. In an interlocutory decision dated 3 October 1986, the Opposition Division decided to maintain the patent as amended by the patentee during the opposition proceedings.
II. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 7 November 1986, and the fee for appeal was duly paid. A statement of grounds of appeal was filed on 12 January 1987. A copy of this statement was sent to the Respondent on 4 March 1987. In reply, the Respondent filed a letter on 13 March 1987, which acknowledged receipt of the statement of grounds of appeal, and which stated that no reply would be filed, and that "the patent proprietor no longer approves of the text of the European patent, either as granted or as proposed with the decision of the Opposition Division".
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal complies with Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 64 EPC and is admissible.
2. In Decision T 73/84 "Revocation at the instance of the patent proprietor/SMS" (OJ EPO 8/1985, page 241) the Board of Appeal held that in an appeal in opposition proceedings, if the patent proprietor states that he no longer approves of the text in which the patent was granted and that he would not be submitting an amended text, the patent should be revoked (confirming the practice in the Opposition Division as set out in Legal Advice No. 11/82 (OJ EPO 2/1982, page 57)).
3. In the present case, the patent proprietor has made it clear in his letter filed on 13 March 1987 that he wishes the patent to be revoked. In the exercise of its power under Article 111(1) EPC, the Board has therefore decided to revoke the patent.
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that the Interlocutory Decision of the Opposition Division dated 30 October 1986 is set aside, and European patent No. 0 012 203 is revoked.
