|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T029019.20210726|
|Date of decision:||26 July 2021|
|Case number:||T 0290/19|
|IPC class:||B01D 53/46
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||System and method for protection of scr catalyst and control of multiple emissions|
|Applicant name:||The Babcock & Wilcox Company|
|Opponent name:||Fletcher, Matthew James Edwin|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Basis of decision - text or agreement to text withdrawn by patent proprietor
Basis of decision - patent revoked
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal in this case lies from the decision of the opposition division to reject the opposition against the European patent EP 2 444 142. The patent in suit concerns a method for the protection of an SCR catalyst.
II. The opponent (appellant) appealed this decision.
The appellant requests that the decision be set aside and the patent be revoked.
III. In reply to the appeal, the patent proprietor (respondent) defended the patent and additionally filed first to seventh auxiliary requests (7 August 2019).
IV. The respondent later withdrew the request for oral proceedings made with the reply and indicated that they would not be taking further action in the appeal proceedings (submission of 14 August 2020).
V. In a further submission (2 July 2021), the respondent stated that they did not intend to defend the patent or uphold the auxiliary requests in the opposition appeal proceedings. The respondent declared that they no longer approved the text in which the patent was granted and no amended text would be provided. They furthermore confirmed their understanding that this meant the patent would be revoked.
VI. The oral proceedings, as appointed for 26 November 2021, were cancelled.
Reasons for the Decision
According to Article 113(2) EPC, a European patent may be maintained only in a version approved by the patent proprietor.
The respondent (patent proprietor) unequivocally withdrew their approval of the text in which the patent was granted, did not uphold the auxiliary requests and stated that they would not be submitting an amended text. In these circumstances the patent is to be revoked (T 73/84, OJ EPO 1985, 241; recently T 1467/16, T 1832/16; see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 9th edition 2019, IV.D.2).
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.