Friday, 2 January 2015

T 204/11 - A little EPC test



This should make for a nice item for a Paper D. The opposition division had rejected the opposition and maintained the patent as granted. However, during the appeal the granted patent
lapsed in all designated states. 

Can the opposition continue, and if so, how should the Board handle this?

(no parts of the decision were highlighted, but instead the entire decision was copied)


Summary of Facts and Submissions
 I. The opponent 1 (appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division posted on 16 November 2010, by which the oppositions against European patent No. 1 185 264 were rejected.

II. By communication of the board of 12 September 2014, the parties' attention was drawn to the fact that the patent had meanwhile lapsed in all designated contracting states, and the appellant was asked to inform the board whether it requested a continuation of the appeal proceedings.

III. The appellant did not reply within the time limit of two months.

Reasons for the Decision
1. If a European patent has lapsed in all designated contracting states, opposition proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent (Rule 84(1)EPC). According to Rule 100(1) EPC, this also applies in appeal proceedings following opposition proceedings.

2. Since the appellant has not, within the time limit set, requested the continuation of the appeal proceedings and the state of the file gives no grounds for the proceedings to be continued by the board of its own motion, the appeal proceedings are terminated (see T 329/88 of 22 June 1993; T 165/95 of 7 July 1997; T 749/01 of 23 August 2002; T 436/02 of 25 June 2004; T 289/06 of 17 December 2007).

Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.
 

This decision has European Case Law Identifier:  ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T020411.20141210. The whole decision can be found here. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo by Alberto G.
obtained via Flickr.


1 comment :

  1. Same question, but now the patent was revoked. Any points for T 1579/12?

    ReplyDelete

Statcounter