T 1680/16 (Multimedia session call/HUAWEI) of 16.4.2020

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T168016.20200416
Date of decision: 16 April 2020
Case number: T 1680/16
Application number: 08846806.1
IPC class: H04L29/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 244 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A multimedia session call control method and the application server thereof
Applicant name: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Opponent name: James Poole Limited
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1) (2007)
European Patent Convention R 100(2) (2007)
Keywords: Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings


Cited decisions:
T 0329/88
T 0708/01
T 0949/09
T 0480/13
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal of the patent proprietor (appellant) lies from the decision of the opposition division revoking the present European patent.

II. By a communication pursuant to Rule 100(2) EPC dated 15 January 2020, the board informed the appellant that the European patent had lapsed in all the designated Contracting States and that, pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC, the appeal proceedings would be discontinued, unless a request for continuation was filed within two months from notification of the board's communication.

III. No request for continuation of the appeal proceedings was received from the 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 it 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. This provision applies by analogy to situations where the patent proprietor is the sole appellant (see e.g. T 708/01, Reasons 1). In the present case, the patent proprietor has not filed any request for continuation. As a consequence, the appeal proceedings are to be terminated.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation