Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 2172/10 () of 12.3.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T217210.20150312
Date of decision: 12 March 2015
Case number: T 2172/10
Application number: 03078711.3
IPC class: B41M 5/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 219.338K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Ink jet recording element
Applicant name: Eastman Kodak Company
Opponent name: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Europe GmbH
Saito & Hata International Patent Office
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(1)
Keywords: Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. Opponent 01 lodged an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 9 August 2010 concerning the maintenance of the European patent Nr. 1 426 195 in amended form.

II. In a communication by the registrar of the board dated 19 August 2014 the parties were informed that the above-mentioned European patent has been surrendered or has lapsed with effect for all the designated Contracting States and that the appeal proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent, provided that within two months from notification of this communication a request is filed.

III. No reply was received to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1), proceedings are not continued after the European patent has lapsed for all the designated Contracting States by non-payment of the renewal fees, unless there is a request to this effect by the opponent filed within two month as from the notification by the European Patent Office of the lapse.

2. As in the present case, no such request has been received, neither from the appellant nor from the non-appealing opponent 02 as a party to the proceedings as of right under Article 107, second sentence, EPC, the proceedings are to be terminated by a decision of the board.

Hence there was no need to decide whether a request for continuation of the proceedings can be validly filed by an opponent as a party as of right.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation