14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T025907.20070917|
|Date of decision:||17 September 2007|
|Case number:||T 0259/07|
|IPC class:||H04N 7/30|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Video transmission apparatus employing intra-frame-only video compression that is MPEG-2 compatible|
|Applicant name:||SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD|
|Opponent name:||Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte e.V. (IGR e.V.)|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In an interlocutory decision announced orally at the oral proceedings held on 24 October 2006 and issued in writing on 11 December 2006 the opposition division decided that European patent No. 0 932 980 in the form as amended in opposition proceedings satisfied the requirements of the EPC.
II. On 8 February 2007 a notice of appeal against this decision was received from the opponent (appellant), the appeal fee being paid on the same day. A statement of grounds of appeal was received on 10 April 2007. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent revoked. He also made an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.
III. In reply thereto the patent proprietor (respondent) stated in a letter dated 13 August 2007: "Pursuant to Art. 113(2) EPC, the respondent in the present appeal hereby withdraws his consent given to the (text of the) patent as maintained in amended form during opposition. The Board of Appeal is requested to take a decision on the basis of the above". An amended text of the patent was not submitted.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. In accordance with Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO can only consider and decide upon the patent in the text submitted or agreed by the patent proprietor. In the present case the proprietor has expressly stated that he no longer agrees to the text of the patent maintained by the opposition division and has not submitted a replacement text for the patent.
3. In such a situation a substantive requirement for maintaining the patent is lacking. It is established case law that in these circumstances the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision ordering revocation, without going into the substantive issues (see for example T 73/84 (OJ EPO 1985, 241) and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 5th edition 2006, VII.D.11.3, page 634 of the English version).
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appealed decision is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.