T 1868/11 (Prasugrel and aspirin/DAIICHI SANKYO) of 11.8.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T186811.20150811
Date of decision: 11 August 2015
Case number: T 1868/11
Application number: 01271850.8
IPC class: A61K 31/4365
A61K 31/60
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 225.141K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: MEDICINAL COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING ASPIRIN
Applicant name: Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited
Ube Industries, Ltd.
Opponent name: Helm AG
ratiopharm GmbH
Board: 3.3.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
Keywords: Withdrawal of all pending requests -termination of appeal proceedings
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 1244/08
T 2054/08
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division revoking European patent No. 1 350 511.

II. The patent proprietors (appellants) lodged an appeal against this decision. In their statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellants requested that the decision of the opposition division be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or on the basis of one of the first to sixth auxiliary requests filed therewith.

III. Opponent 1 (respondent I) and opponent 3 (respondent II) both filed responses to the statement of grounds of appeal and requested that the appeal be dismissed.

IV. The board issued a summons to oral proceedings dated 18 May 2015 accompanied by a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA).

V. With its letter of 19 May 2015 the appellants filed new third and fourth auxiliary requests and renumbered the previously filed third to sixth auxiliary requests as fifth to eighth auxiliary requests, respectively.

VI. Oral proceedings took place on 11 August 2015. The appellants and respondent II were represented. Respondent I had informed the board that it would not attend. At the commencement of the oral proceedings the appellants and respondent I confirmed their requests on file.

VII. After the board had given the parties its view on the pending requests, the appellants declared that they withdrew all their pending requests.

Reasons for the Decision

The withdrawal of all pending requests in the appeal proceedings by the appellants can only mean that they also withdrew their agreement to the text of the patent as granted and to any amendment submitted during the proceedings in view of the maintenance of the patent in amended form. According to established case law of the boards of appeal, the withdrawal by the appellant, as the proprietor of a patent that has been revoked by the opposition division, of its agreement to any text for the maintenance of the patent is to be interpreted as the withdrawal of its appeal (see e.g. decisions T 1244/08 and T 2054/08). Consequently, the appeal proceedings are immediately and automatically terminated and the decision under appeal becomes final.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation