14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T127210.20160711|
|Date of decision:||11 July 2016|
|Case number:||T 1272/10|
|IPC class:||A61K 39/39
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Use of skin penetration enhancers and barrier disruption agents to enhance transcutaneous immune response|
|Applicant name:||The Government of the United States, as
represented by Secretary of the Army
|Opponent name:||Sagittarius Intellectual Property Consultants Ltd|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Lapse of patent in all designated states - continuation of appeal proceedings (no)|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The patent proprietor (appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 1 356 821.
II. By a communication of the board dated 25 April 2016, the parties' attention was drawn to the fact that the patent had lapsed in all designated Contracting States and the appellant was invited to inform the board within two months from notification of the communication whether it requested a continuation of the appeal proceedings.
III. In reply to the board's communication the appellant notified the board with letter dated 27 June 2016 that it requested no continuation of the appeal proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
1. If a European patent has lapsed in all designated Contracting States, opposition proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent (see Rule 84(1) EPC). According to Rule 100(1) EPC, this also applies in appeal proceedings following opposition proceedings.
2. However, if - as in the present case - the patent proprietor is the appellant, it would be inappropriate to allow the opponent(s) (respondent(s)) to decide whether the appeal proceedings shall be continued. For this reason, Rule 84(1) EPC has to be applied mutatis mutandis in such opposition-appeal proceedings so that it is the patent proprietor as the appellant who can request that the appeal proceedings be continued (see for example decision T 1733/09, point 2 of the Reasons, decision T 1313/10, point 1 of the Reasons, or decision T 1825/11, point 2 of the Reasons and the case law cited in these decisions).
3. As the patent proprietor has explicitly indicated that it does not request a continuation of the appeal proceedings (see section III, above), the appeal proceedings are to be terminated.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.