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 1300/14 () of 15.5.2017

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T130014.20170515
Date of decision: 15 May 2017
Case number: T 1300/14
Application number: 97921275.0
IPC class: C01B 33/193
H01M 2/16
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 220.145K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Applicant name: PPG Industries Ohio, Inc.
Opponent name: Evonik Degussa GmbH
Board: 3.3.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(2)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal
Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (opponent) lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division of 29 April 2014 rejecting the opposition against European patent EP-B1-0 902 758.

II. In a communication from the registrar of the board dated 8 February 2017 the parties were informed that the European patent had lapsed for all designated states and that the appeal proceedings could be continued at the request of the opponent provided that within two months from the notification of this communication a request to this effect was filed.

III. The opponent did not request the continuation of the proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1) and (2) EPC, proceedings may only be continued after the European patent has lapsed for non-payment of the renewal fees if there is a request to this effect by the opponent filed within two months as from the notification by the European Patent Office of the lapse.

2. As in the present case the appellant did not request the continuation, the proceedings are to be terminated.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation