T 1258/16 (Abiraterone prednisone combination for treatment of prostate cancer/ … of 6.2.2020

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T125816.20200206
Date of decision: 06 February 2020
Case number: T 1258/16
Application number: 07837326.3
IPC class: A61K 31/573
A61P 35/00
A61K 31/58
A61K 45/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 270 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Compositions for treating cancer
Applicant name: Janssen Oncology, Inc.
Opponent name: Alfred E. Tiefenbacher (GmbH & Co. KG)
Helm AG
Laboratorios Léon Farma, S.A.
STADA Arzneimittel AG
Hetero Drugs Ltd.
Synthon B.V./Genthon B.V.
Galenicum Health S.L.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries LTD.
Maiwald Patent- und Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Generics [UK] Limited
Actavis Group PTC ehf
Gallafent, Alison
Patentanwälte Isenbruck Bösl Hörschler PartG mbB
Zentiva k.s.
Board: 3.3.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 113(2)
Keywords: Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor


Cited decisions:
T 1244/08
T 2054/08
T 0203/12
Citing decisions:
T 0777/15

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The patent proprietor (appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division revoking the European patent No. 2 061 561.

II. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant filed an amended main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 7.

III. Summons to oral proceedings accompanied by a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2007 were issued by the board.

IV. In a letter dated 28 January 2020, the appellant's representative stated that the appellant withdrew all requests on file and its approval of the text upon which the patent was granted, that it would not be submitting any replacement text and that it understood the consequences that will follow from this action.

V. Oral proceedings were cancelled.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. According to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, the declaration of the appellant (see point IV above), as the proprietor of a patent that has been revoked by the opposition division, is to be interpreted as the withdrawal of its appeal (see inter alia T 1244/08, T 2054/08, T 203/12), with the consequence that the appeal proceedings are terminated and the decision of the opposition division (i.e. revocation of the patent) becomes final.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation