T 1801/08 () of 26.3.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T180108.20100326
Date of decision: 26 March 2010
Case number: T 1801/08
Application number: 00121431.1
IPC class: B08B 3/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.687K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method of removing contamination adhered to surfaces
Applicant name: NOMURA MICRO SCIENCE CO., LTD., et al
Opponent name: WINKLER, Yvonne
Board: 3.2.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(1)
Keywords: Non-payment of renewal fees - lapse of patent - termination of the appeal proceedings
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
G 0001/90
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. Opposition was filed against European patent No. 1 088 603.

The opposition division decided to maintain the patent in amended form in accordance with the fifth auxiliary request.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed an appeal against that decision.

The respondents (patent proprietors) did not file an appeal.

III. With a communication dated 8 January 2010 the parties were informed by the Board that according to the information available to the European Patent Office the patent had lapsed in all the designated Contracting States.

In the communication the respondents were requested to confirm this information. With letter of 12 January 2010 the respondents confirmed this information.

In said communication the appellant was informed that pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC the opposition proceedings could be continued if a corresponding request was filed within two months.

No such request was filed within this period.

Reasons for the Decision

1. According to Rule 84(1) EPC in combination with Rule 100(1) EPC the proceedings have to be terminated after the lapse of the European patent in all the designated Contracting States in the absence of a request by the opponent for continuation of the proceedings (see G 1/90, OJ EPO 1991, 275, point 7 of the reasons, special case of closure of the proceedings).

2. In the present case no such request has been filed so that the proceedings have to be terminated.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation