T 1884/16 (Sorafenib in combination with other cytostatic or cytotoxic agents/ … of 23.11.2021

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T188416.20211123
Date of decision: 23 November 2021
Case number: T 1884/16
Application number: 06023696.5
IPC class: A61K 31/44
A61K 31/535
A61K 31/65
A61K 31/435
A61K 31/505
A61K 31/47
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 236 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Aryl urea compounds in combination with other cytostatic or cytotoxic agents for treating human cancers
Applicant name: Bayer HealthCare LLC
Opponent name: Altmann, Andreas
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Keywords: Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor
Basis of decision - patent revoked


Cited decisions:
T 0073/84
T 0186/84
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The opposition division rejected the opposition against European patent No. 1 769 795.

II. The opponent (appellant) lodged an appeal against this decision. It requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked.

III. The patent proprietor (respondent) requested that the appeal be dismissed. Its main request was that the patent be maintained as granted. Alternatively, a patent was to be maintained in amended form on the basis of the sets of claims of any of auxiliary requests I to VII, all submitted with the reply to the statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

IV. With its letter of 18 November 2021 the respondent informed the board that it no longer approved the text of the granted patent, that all requests filed so far were withdrawn, that no amended text would be submitted, and that, therefore, revocation of the patent was expected.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The respondent withdrew its agreement to the text of the granted patent, withdrew any requests filed so far and confirmed that it did not intend to submit any other text for the maintenance of the patent.

Article 113(2) EPC stipulates that the EPO may decide upon a European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed to by the patent proprietor. However, this substantive requirement for maintaining the contested patent is not fulfilled in the present case. There is therefore no text of the patent on the basis of which the Board can consider the appeal of the appellant (see T 73/84, OJ EPO, 1985, 241, reasons point 2).

3. The patent is therefore to be revoked, without going into the substantive issues (see T 186/84, OJ EPO 1986, 79, reasons point 5).


For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

Quick Navigation