| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T019594.19980227 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 27 February 1998 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0195/94 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 86400545.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12C 5/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Unsweetened malt beverages with improved flavor and method of making same | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | The Stroh Brewery Company | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Vitamalz GmbH & Co. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | National patents lapsed in all Designated States Termination of appeal proceedings |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The Appellant Vitamalz GmbH & Co. lodged an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17. January 1994 rejecting the opposition filed against the European patent No. 0 195 715.
II. In a letter dated 19 November 1997, received on 24. November 1997, the Respondent (Proprietor) submitted "that the patent has lapsed failing to pay the national annual fees in the designated countries" and that the appeal file definitely had to be closed.
III. In a communication dated 10 December 1997, the Board notified the parties to the proceedings, of the expiration of the national patents and stated that the appeal proceedings would be terminated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 60(1) EPC unless a request to continue the proceedings was filed within two months.
IV. By a letter dated 15 December 1997, the only remaining opponent stated his agreement to the termination of the appeal proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
Pursuant to Rule 60(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 66(1) EPC, proceedings are not continued after the European patent has lapsed by non-payment of the renewal fees unless at the request of an opponent filed within two months as from the notification by the European Patent Office of the lapse.
As in the present case, the parties are no more interested in the proceedings, these are terminated ("special case" of termination of opposition proceedings referred to in G 1/90, OJ EPO 1991, 275 to 279, Reasons, 7).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated
