Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0013/01 () of 17.10.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T001301.20061017
Date of decision: 17 October 2006
Case number: T 0013/01
Application number: 94915848.9
IPC class: B01J 33/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.897K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A method of treating spontaneously combustible catalysts
Opponent name: Akzo Nobel N.V.
Board: 3.3.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(2)
Keywords: Agreement to text of the patent withdrawn - revocation


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In an interlocutory decision posted on 7 November 2000 the Opposition Division found that the European patent No. 0 696 937 in the form as amended in opposition proceedings satisfied the requirements of the EPC.

II. On 5 January 2001 the opponent (appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision and paid the corresponding

fee on the same day. A statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed on 16 March 2001.

III. In reply to the summons to oral proceedings and the communication of the Board of 27 July 2006, the respondent's (proprietor's) representative stated by telefax dated 2 October 2006, that the proprietor disapproved the text of the granted patent and as subsequently upheld by the decision of first instance dated 7 November 2000. He also stated in the same telefax that the main and auxiliary requests currently on the file were withdrawn. An amended text was not submitted.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is 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 states that he no longer approves the text of the patent as granted or subsequently amended. 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).


For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision of the Opposition Division dated

7 November 2000 is set aside.

2. European patent No. 0 696 937 is revoked.

Quick Navigation