14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T060609.20100908|
|Date of decision:||08 September 2010|
|Case number:||T 0606/09|
|IPC class:||C22C 21/02|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Aluminium brazing alloy|
|Applicant name:||Corus Aluminium Walzprodukte GmbH, et al|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Lapse of patent
Termination of appeal proceedings
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Opposition was filed against European patent 1 323 839.
II. The opposition division decided that the patent was to be maintained in amended form on the basis of the fifth auxiliary request.
III. The opponent filed an appeal against that decision.
IV. With letter dated 27 April 2010, the respondent/proprietor informed the Board that the patent had lapsed in all designated Contracting States where it had originally been validated, by non-payment of the annuities.
V. That was confirmed by the information available to the European Patent Office, for all the designated Contracting States for which corresponding information was provided to the European Patent Office.
VI. With a communication dated 11 May 2010 the parties were informed by the Board of that situation and the appellant/opponent was informed that pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC the opposition proceedings could be continued if a corresponding request was filed within two months.
VII. No reply was received to that communication and then in particular no request for continuation of the proceedings was filed by the appellant/opponent.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Absent any specific provision concerning continuation of appeal proceedings in case a European patent has lapsed in all the designated Contracting States, Rule 100(1) EPC prescribes that the provisions relating to proceedings before the department which has taken the decision impugned shall apply to appeal proceedings. According to Rule 84(1) EPC, if the patent has lapsed in all designated Contracting States, the opposition proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent. On the basis of the above-mentioned Rule 100(1) EPC, Rule 84(1) EPC applies mutatis mutandis to the appellant/opponent in appeal proceedings.
2. In the present case no request for continuation of the proceedings has been filed by the appellant/opponent.
3. Therefore, the proceedings have to be terminated (G 01/90, JO OEB 1991, 275, Reasons, 7.).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.