|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T004408.20120606|
|Date of decision:||06 June 2012|
|Case number:||T 0044/08|
|IPC class:||C08G 64/30|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Process for the preparation of polycarbonates by melt-polycondensation|
|Applicant name:||DAICEL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.|
|Opponent name:||Bayer Materialscience AG|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||No text agreed by the patent proprietor|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the opposition division against European patent Nº 0 872 507 (application Nº 98 111 628.8) posted on 22 November 2007, rejecting the opposition pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.
II. On 09 January 2008 the opponent filed an appeal against this decision and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was submitted by letter dated and received on 20 March 2008. In this letter the appellant requested that the decision of the opposition division be set aside and that the patent be revoked. Furthermore the appellant filed an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.
III. With a letter dated 11 August 2008, the respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed.
IV. In a communication pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC, sent on 23 February 2012, the Board summoned the parties to oral proceedings to take place on 04 July 2012.
V. With a letter dated 29 May 2012, the proprietor stated:
"The applicant/patentee herewith declares that he no longer approves the text of the above-identified European patent as granted. Furthermore it is submitted that the patentee also no longer approves the text of amended claims and specification pages submitted so for during the proceedings and also does not intend to submit anything further in the present proceedings."
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. Under the provisions of Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO shall decide upon the European patent only in the text submitted or agreed by the proprietor of the patent.
In the present case the proprietor clearly indicated in his letter dated 29 May 2012 that he no longer approved the text of the opposed patent as well as the text of amended claims and specification pages submitted during the proceedings and that he did not intend to submit any further amended claims.
As a consequence, the Board, noting the absence of any text approved by the proprietor, has to revoke the patent.
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision of the opposition division dated 22 November 2007 is set aside.
2. European patent No. 872507 is revoked.