|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T018815.20181031|
|Date of decision:||31 October 2018|
|Case number:||T 0188/15|
|IPC class:||C12N 5/00
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||PRODUCTION OF A POLYPEPTIDE IN A SERUM-FREE CELL CULTURE LIQUID CONTAINING PLANT PROTEIN HYDROLYSATE|
|Applicant name:||Novo Nordisk Health Care AG|
|Opponent name:||Baxter Healthcare S.A.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of the appeal proceedings|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals of the patent proprietor (appellant I) and the opponent (appellant II) lie from an interlocutory decision of an opposition division under Article 101(3)(a) and 106(2) EPC posted on 17 November 2014, in which it was found that, account being taken of the amendments introduced into the claims according to the auxiliary request 2 and the description adapted thereto, the European patent No. 1 851 305 with the title "Production of a polypeptide in a serum-free cell culture liquid containing plant protein hydrolysate" and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC.
II. By a communication pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC dated 9 August 2018, the board informed the appellants that, even though the European patent had lapsed with effect for all the designated Contracting States, the appeal proceedings could be continued at their request, provided that the request was filed within two months from notification of the communication.
III. No request for continuation of the proceedings was received from either appellant.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1) EPC, appeal proceedings may be continued after the European patent has lapsed, if the opponent files a request to this effect within two months of a communication informing him of the lapse (see, inter alia, decisions T 329/88 of 22 June 1993; T 949/09 of 17 October 2012; and T 480/13 of 5 November 2014).
2. According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see, e.g., decision T 520/10 of 11 June 2013), when the patent proprietor has filed an appeal, by analogy to Rule 84(1) in connection with Rule 100(1) EPC the appeal proceedings may be continued also upon request of the patent proprietor.
3. Since no request for continuation of the appeal proceedings was received from either appellant in due time, the board decides to terminate the appeal proceedings.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated.