14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T027512.20150423|
|Date of decision:||23 April 2015|
|Case number:||T 0275/12|
|IPC class:||A47L 13/17
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Abrasive wipe for treating a surface|
|Applicant name:||The Procter & Gamble Company|
|Opponent name:||SCA Hygiene Products AB|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Surrender of patent in all designated states - revocation of the patent at request of the patent proprietor
Surrender of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The Appellant (proprietor of the patent) lodged an appeal, received on 8 February 2012, against the decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office posted on 19 December 2011 revoking European patent No. 1688080 pursuant to Article 101(3)b EPC. The appeal fee was paid on the same day. The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was received on 16 April 2012.
Opposition was filed against the patent as a whole. The opposition division held that, taking into account amendments made by the proprietor during opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates did not meet the requirements of the EPC. The opposition division therefore revoked the patent.
II. In a communication dated 19 February 2015 the Board summoned the parties to attend oral proceedings on 29 April 2015.
III. With a letter of 8 April 2015 the proprietor declared that they requested the patent be revoked.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. According to established jurisprudence, see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 7th edition, 2013 (CLBA) IV.C.5.2, see also T 481/96, T 18/92 and T 347/90 cited therein, by requesting the revocation of the patent the appellant simultaneously expresses that he is no longer interested in the continuation of the appeal procedure nor in a decision in respect of the appeal under Article 111 EPC.
3. Therefore the Board, following the established jurisprudence documented above, concludes that the above declaration of the appellant is to be taken as the withdrawal of the appeal.
For these reasons it is decided that:
By the declaration of the appellant of 8 April 2015 implying the withdrawal of the appeal the appeal procedure is terminated; in agreement with the decision of the opposition division the patent remains revoked.