|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T038215.20171123|
|Date of decision:||23 November 2017|
|Case number:||T 0382/15|
|IPC class:||C11D 17/00
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||COMPOSITION FOR VISIBILITY AND IMPACT OF SUSPENDED MATERIALS|
|Applicant name:||Colgate-Palmolive Company|
|Opponent name:||UNILEVER PLC / UNILEVER NV
The Procter & Gamble Company
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. Each of the three Opponents lodged an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the oppositions filed against the European patent no. 2 016 164.
II. By a communication of the Registry dated 25 August 2017 the parties were informed that the European patent had been surrendered or had lapsed with effect for all the designated Contracting States and that the appeal proceedings might be continued pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC at the request of an appellant/opponent, to be filed within two months from notification of the communication.
III. Appellant III/Opponent 3 withdrew its appeal by letter of 11 October 2017.
IV. Neither Appellant I/Opponent 1 nor Appellant II/Opponent 2 replied to this communication within the set time limit of two months.
Reasons for the Decision
1. As apparent from the online European Patent Register, the patent in suit has been surrendered or lapsed with effect for all the designated Contracting States.
2. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1) EPC, appeal proceedings are not continued in such a case, unless a request to that end is filed by an Opponent/Appellant within two months from notification by the European Patent Office informing it of the surrender or lapse of the patent in suit (see also Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8**(th) edition 2016, IV.C.4.1.2, first, second and fourth paragraphs).
3. Since none of the Opponents filed such a request within the set time limit, the proceedings are terminated without a decision on the merits.
For these reasons it is decided that: