T 1923/10 (Monofilament tape/MCNEIL-PPC) of 7.8.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T192310.20130807
Date of decision: 07 August 2013
Case number: T 1923/10
Application number: 01998677.7
IPC class: D01F 8/06
D01F 8/12
D01F 8/14
A61C 15/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 92 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: MONOFILAMENT TAPE
Applicant name: McNeil-PPC, Inc.
Opponent name: The Procter & Gamble Company
Board: 3.3.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
Keywords: Agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor - new text not submitted - patent revoked


Cited decisions:
T 0157/85
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal by the opponent lies from the decision of the opposition division rejecting the opposition against European patent nº 1 366 224.

II. In its statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the patent in suit be revoked.

III. In a letter of 19 July 2013, in response to a communication by the Board in preparation for the oral proceedings, the patent proprietor/respondent indicated that it was no longer interested in the case. Then, by letter of 24 July 2013, the patent proprietor irrevocably withdrew his approval of the text in which the patent was granted and announced that it would not be filing any text to replace the disapproved text.

IV. With a communication faxed on 25 July 2013 the parties were informed that the oral proceedings scheduled to take place on 7 August 2013 had been cancelled.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. According to Article 113(2) EPC, a European patent can be maintained only in a version approved by the patent proprietor. In the present case, the patent proprietor has expressly declared that it no longer approves the text in which the patent was granted and that it will not be submitting any amended text to replace the disapproved text. Therefore, in accordance with established case law (e.g. decision T 0157/85 of 12 May 1986 acknowledged in the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 6th edition 2010, VII.C.6.1.2) the patent is to be revoked without substantive examination as to patentability.


For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

Quick Navigation