14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T061201.20050527|
|Date of decision:||27 May 2005|
|Case number:||T 0612/01|
|IPC class:||A61K 7/48|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Amphoteric compositions and polymeric forms of alpha hydroxyacids, and their therapeutic use|
|Applicant name:||Yu, Ruey J., Dr., et al.|
|Opponent name:||Beiersdorf Aktiengesellschaft|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Revocation of the patent as a consequence of the patentee's request for revocation|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In an interlocutory decision posted on 30 April 2001, the opposition division maintained the European patent EP-0 413 528, based on application No. 90 308 828.4 in amended form based on the IX auxiliary request.
II. The appellant (opponent) appealed against this decision and filed grounds of appeal.
III. During the appeal procedure the respondent (patentee) filed several amended set of claims in response to communications of the board.
However, the respondent filed with its letter of 20 May 2005 the following request: "It is herewith requested to revoke European Patent No. 413 528. Further, our request for Oral Proceedings is withdrawn."
IV. The appellant requested that the patent be revoked.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. The respondent's (patentee) request for revocation of the patent is considered as meaning that the respondent does no longer approve any text in which the patent could be maintained. Hence the inevitable consequence of such a statement is that the patent must be revoked (cf. decision T 0186/84, OJ 1986, 79).
3. The board can, therefore, in the exercise of its power under Article 111(1) EPC decide to revoke the patent.
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.