|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T194216.20220122|
|Date of decision:||22 January 2022|
|Case number:||T 1942/16|
|IPC class:||C12N 1/12
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||INDUCTION OF GENE EXPRESSION USING A HIGH CONCENTRATION SUGAR MIXTURE|
|Applicant name:||GENENCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC.|
|Opponent name:||AB Enzymes GmbH|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of the appeal proceedings|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. European patent No. 1 545 217 based on European patent application No. 03796327.9 (published as International patent application WO 2004/035070; hereinafter "the patent application") was opposed on the grounds of Articles 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC. The opposition division considered the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 7 to contravene Article 123(2) EPC and revoked the patent.
II. The patent proprietor (appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division and submitted with its statement of grounds of appeal a main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 15.
III. By a communication pursuant to Rules 84(1) and 100(1) EPC dated 11 November 2021, the board informed the appellant that, even though the European patent has lapsed with effect for all designated Contracting States, the appeal proceedings could be continued, provided the appellant (patent proprietor) filed a request within two months from notification of the communication (T 708/01 of 17 March 2005, reasons 1.2; T 520/10 of 11 June 2013, reasons 1 and T 1825/11 of 14 July 2015, reasons 2).
IV. No request for continuation of the 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 in all the designated Contracting States, if the opponent files a request to this effect within two months of a communication informing him 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. According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see, e.g., decision T 520/10 of 11 June 2013), when the patent proprietor has filed an appeal, Rule 84(1) in connection with Rule 100(1) EPC has to be applied mutatis mutandis so that it is the patent proprietor who can request that the appeal proceedings be continued.
3. Since no request for continuation of the appeal proceedings was received from the appellant in due time, the board decides to terminate the appeal proceedings.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal proceedings are terminated