T 0920/93 () of 27.1.1994

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1994:T092093.19940127
Date of decision: 27 January 1994
Case number: T 0920/93
Application number: 88109167.2
IPC class: B63H 21/28
B63H 23/04
F16H 3/14
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 111 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Reversing mechanism for an outboard propulsion power leg
Applicant name: M.P.M. Meccanica Padana Monteverde S.p.A.
Opponent name: Hurth Getriebe und Zahnräder GmbH
Board: 3.2.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 102(3)(a)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(2)
Keywords: Basis of decisions - patentee (request for revocation by)


Cited decisions:
T 0073/84
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In a decision dated 25 August 1993 the Opposition Division rejected the opposition filed against European patent No. 0 295 569.

II. The Appellant (Opponent) appealed against this decision by a letter filed on 22 October 1993, paid the fee for appeal on the same day and filed a Statement of Grounds of appeal on 17 December 1993. He requested that the patent be revoked.

III. In a letter dated 20 January 1994 the Respondent (Proprietor) requested revocation of the patent and refund of all refundable fees, if any.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal complies with Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 64 EPC and is admissible.

2. It follows from the provision according to Article 113(2) EPC that a European patent cannot be maintained against the Proprietor's will. Thus, in view of the Respondent's request for revocation of his patent, the present European patent has to be revoked (cf. T 73/84; OJ EPO 1985, 241).

3. The request regarding refund of fees lacks substantiation in that the Respondent did not specify any fee which, in his opinion, should be refunded and did not give any reason supporting such refund. Therefore, the Board, not being aware of any refundable fee in the present case, has to reject this request.


For these reasons, it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The European patent No. 0 295 569 is revoked.

3. The request regarding refund of fees is rejected.

Quick Navigation