T 0214/13 () of 22.4.2016

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T021413.20160422
Date of decision: 22 April 2016
Case number: T 0214/13
Application number: 02000285.3
IPC class: F27D 1/16
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 222 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Spray method for monolithic refractories
Applicant name: Plibrico Japan Company Ltd.
Opponent name: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
Sika Technology AG
Board: 3.2.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(1)
Keywords: -


Cited decisions:
T 0329/88
T 0289/06
T 0978/07
T 0949/09
T 1133/12
T 0480/13
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (opponent 2) lodged an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division that the amended European patent N° 1 223 399 and the invention to which it relates met the requirements of the EPC.

II. In a communication of the Board dated 20 November 2015 the parties were informed that an inspection of the Register had shown that the patent had lapsed for all the designated contracting states. However, the appeal proceedings could be continued at the request of the appellant, provided that such a request was filed within two months from the notification of that communication.

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

Reasons for the Decision

1. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1) EPC, proceedings are not continued after the European patent has lapsed in all the contracting states, unless there is a request to that end by the appellant/opponent filed within two months from notification by the European Patent Office (EPO) of the lapse (see e.g. T 329/88; T 289/06; T 978/07; T 949/09; T 1133/12; T 480/13 - all decisions not published in the EPO Official Journal).

2. Since in the present case no request was filed by the appellant, the proceedings are terminated.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation