T 1123/03 () of 20.7.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T112303.20040720
Date of decision: 20 July 2004
Case number: T 1123/03
Application number: 88302739.3
IPC class: H01L 39/14
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.988K)
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Versions: Unpublished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 preparing a superconducting oxide and superconducting oxide metal composites
Applicant name: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Opponent name: Siemens AG
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(2)
Keywords: Proprietor no longer approves the text as granted - revocation of the patent
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
T 1161/01

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In a decision dated 20 August 2003 the Opposition Division rejected the opposition which had been filed against European patent No.: 0 286 289.

II. On 16 October 2003 the opponent (appellant) lodged an appeal against that decision and paid the corresponding fee on the same day. A statement of grounds of appeal was filed on 17. December 2003.

III. In a letter dated 26 May 2004 the respondent's (proprietor's) representative stated that the European patent had been abandoned.

In a reply dated 13 July 2004 to a communication of behalf of the Board the respondent's (proprietor's) representative stated that the proprietor no longer approved the text of the granted patent and that no new text would be filed.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal complies with Article 106 to 108 and Rule 64 EPC and is therefore 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 previously 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).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision of the Opposition Division dated 20. August 2003 is set aside.

2. European patent No. 0 262 289 is revoked.

Quick Navigation