|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T026715.20190702|
|Date of decision:||02 July 2019|
|Case number:||T 0267/15|
|IPC class:||B26B 21/40|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||RAZORS AND SHAVING CARTRIDGES WITH GUARD|
|Applicant name:||The Gillette Company LLC|
|Opponent name:||Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Basis of decision - revocation of the patent at request of the patent proprietor|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The patent proprietor (appellant) lodged an appeal within the prescribed period and in the prescribed form against the decision of the opposition division revoking European patent No. 1 722 944.
II. The appeal was originally directed towards maintaining the patent in an amended form on the basis of one of the requests filed with the statement setting out the grounds (main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 5).
III. The patent proprietor declared with letter dated 3 April 2019 that he abandoned the patent in suit, no longer approved the text in which the patent in suit was granted, and requested the revocation thereof.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The patent proprietor explicitly disapproved the text in which the patent in suit was granted.
By abandoning the patent in suit and requesting revocation thereof, the patent proprietor also disapproved the text in which the patent was sought to be maintained during the opposition proceedings, as well as of the text of all the requests filed during appeal proceedings (main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 5), without filing any other amended text on which further prosecution of the appeal could be based, as explicitly confirmed by letter dated 3 April 2019.
2. As the text of a patent is at the disposition of the patent proprietor, a patent cannot be maintained against the patent proprietor's will (Article 113(2) EPC, settled case law, e.g. T 186/84, OJ EPO 1986, see also Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th edition 2016, IV.C.5.2 with further references to the jurisprudence).
3. The patent can therefore only remain revoked.
4. This decision is taken without oral proceedings because, in view of the above, the patent proprietor's auxiliary request for oral proceedings to discuss the maintenance of the opposed patent as well as the opponents' auxiliary request for oral proceedings have become obsolete.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.