T 1928/16 () of 23.4.2019

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T192816.20190423
Date of decision: 23 April 2019
Case number: T 1928/16
Application number: 08736348.7
IPC class: H02J 3/14
H02J 3/32
H02J 3/38
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 231 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A Load Management Controller for a Household Electrical Installation
Applicant name: Cooper, Timothy Patrick
Opponent name: SIB Energy Limited
Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG
Viessmann Werke GmbH & Co. KG
SMA Solar Technology AG
Board: 3.5.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
Keywords: Lapse of patent in all designated states - continuation of appeal proceedings (no)


Cited decisions:
T 0708/01
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The patent proprietor has appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 June 2016 revoking the European patent No. EP 2 041 853.

II. The patent has meanwhile lapsed in all designated Contracting States.

III. By a communication of the Board of 4 February 2019, the attention of the parties was drawn to Rule 84(1) EPC and the appellant (patent proprietor) was invited to inform the Board within two months from notification of the communication whether it was requested that the appeal proceedings be continued. The parties were advised that if no request for continuation of the appeal proceedings was received, the Board intended to terminate the appeal proceedings.

IV. Within the time period set in the above communication no reply was filed.

Reasons for the Decision

1. If a European patent has lapsed in all designated Contracting States, opposition proceedings may be continued at the request of the opponent, Rule 84(1) EPC. It follows from Rule 100(1) EPC that this also applies in appeal proceedings following opposition proceedings.

2. However, if, as in the present case, the patent proprietor is the appellant, it would be inappropriate to allow the opponent to determine whether or not the appeal proceedings are to be continued. For this reason, Rule 84(1) EPC has to be applied in such cases so that the patent proprietor can request that the appeal proceedings be continued (see decision T0708/01, not published in OJ EPO, and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, eighth edition, IV.C.4.1.2.b - Request for continuation of the proceedings made by the patent proprietor).

3. The patent proprietor has been invited to file such a request for continuation, but has not done so.

4. The appeal proceedings are consequently terminated by this decision of the Board.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation