T 1815/13 () of 20.10.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T181513.20141020
Date of decision: 20 October 2014
Case number: T 1815/13
Application number: 06003796.7
IPC class: B23K 35/26
C22C 13/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 207.628K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Pb-free solder alloy compositions comprising essentially tin (Sn), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), and phosphorus (P)
Applicant name: AOKI LABORATORIES LTD.
Opponent name: Goldbach, Klara
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
Keywords: Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 0186/84
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The opposition against European patent No. 1 707 302 was rejected by the decision of the Opposition Division. Against this decision an appeal was filed by the opponent (appellant). The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed on 18 October 2013.

II. The appellant requested that the impugned decision be set aside and the patent in suit be revoked.

III. With its letter of 30 September 2014 the patent proprietor (respondent) stated that it no longer agreed with the claims of the patent as granted and did not wish to propose any amendments or different set of claims.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. In the letter of 30 September 2014 the patent proprietor withdrew its agreement to the text in which the patent was granted (and upheld by the opposition division) and stated that it did not intend to submit any other text for the maintenance of the patent.

3. Article 113(2) EPC, however, stipulates that the EPO may decide upon a European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed to by the patent proprietor. This substantive requirement for maintaining the contested patent is not fulfilled in the present case.

4. The patent is therefore to be revoked, without going into the substantive issues (see also T 186/84, OJ EPO 1986, 79, reasons point 5).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

Quick Navigation