| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1991:T009288.19910719 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 19 July 1991 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0092/88 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 82901341.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23C 19/032 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method for the manufacture of cheese with a substantially reduced fat content | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Lavery & Son Proprietary Ltd | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Krayer, Warner Dirk | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Patent revoked as consequence of the patentee stating that the EPO is "welcome to revoke the patent" |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The Opposition Division rejected the opposition filed against European patent No. 0 078 813, granted upon the subject-matter of European patent application No. 82 901 341.6.
II. The Appellant (Opponent) appealed against this decision and requested that the patent be revoked.
III. In a reply to the Statement of Grounds, the Respondent (Patentee) requested that the appeal be rejected and the patent maintained unamended.
IV. Subsequently, in reply to a summons to oral proceedings, a letter quoting the number of the patent in suit and dated 4 July 1991 was received in which the representative of the Respondent stated:
"I shall not be attending the oral proceedings. You are welcome to revoke the patent. According to my clients, the patent has been allowed to lapse in all designated States."
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. The Respondent (the firm David Lavery & Son Proprietary Ltd) has invited the Board through its representative by the letter referred to in paragraph IV above to revoke the patent. The Board is satisfied that this letter has to be construed as meaning that the Respondent (the patent proprietor) now agrees that the patent be revoked, as consistently requested by the Appellant.
3. Accordingly, following the principles set out in the decision on appeal T 237/86 (OJ EPO 1988, 261), the Board has decided, in the exercise of its powers under Article 111(1) EPC, to revoke the European patent.
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The decision under appeal is set aside and the patent revoked.
