T 0612/00 () of 21.9.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T061200.20060921
Date of decision: 21 September 2006
Case number: T 0612/00
Application number: 89123166.4
IPC class: D01F 1/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 52.231K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Stain-resistant, pigmented nylon fibers and processes for making such fibers
Applicant name: E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Opponent name: RHODIA PERFORMANCE FIBRES
BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Board: 3.3.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(2)
Keywords: Agreement to text of the patent withdrawn - revocation
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In a decision posted on 18 April 2000 the Opposition Division rejected the oppositions filed against European patent No. 0 373 655.

II. On 15 June 2000 opponent 01 (appellant 01) lodged an appeal against that decision and paid the corresponding fee on the same day. A statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed on 24 August 2000.

On 16 June 2000 opponent 02 (appellant 02) lodged an appeal against that decision as well and paid the corresponding fee on the same day. An opponent's statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed on 3 August 2000.

III. In reply to the summons to oral proceedings and the communication of the Board of 19 June 2006, the respondent's (proprietor's) representative stated by letter dated 21 August 2006, that agreement to the version proposed for grant of the patent was withdrawn. An amended version was not submitted.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeals are admissible.

2. In accordance with Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO can maintain the patent only in the text agreed by the proprietor of the patent. Agreement cannot be held to be given if the proprietor, without submitting an amended text, expressly withdraws agreement to the text of the patent as granted and maintained by the first instance. In such a situation a substantive requirement for maintaining the patent is lacking and the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation, without going into the substantive issues (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 4th edition 2001, VII.D.11.3, page 540 of the English version).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision of the Opposition Division dated 18 April 2000 is set aside.

2. European patent No. 0 373 655 is revoked.

Quick Navigation