A notice of abandonment of the patent was held to be tantamount to withdrawing the appeal in T 1003/01. In T 60/00, however, the appellant's statement that it had decided not to pursue the appeal was not regarded as unambiguous withdrawal of the appeal, derived from the principles laid down in earlier case law: effective withdrawal does not depend on the term "withdrawal" being used (J 7/87, OJ 1988, 422); a request for withdrawal should only be accepted without question if it is completely unqualified and unambiguous (J 11/80, OJ 1981, 141); and where any doubt as to a party's intent exists, the declaration made can be construed as a withdrawal only if the related subsequent facts confirm that such is the party's true intent (J 11/87, OJ 1988, 367). In T 2347/11 of 16 October 2012 date: 2012-10-16 the letter of "withdrawal" of an application in this case did not relate unambiguously and without doubt to the case at issue and thus could not be understood as withdrawal of the appeal. See also T 2514/11.
According to the board in T 1244/08, where an appellant holding a patent revoked by an opposition division stated that it did not agree with the text of the patent as granted and was not proposing an amended one, this was tantamount to a withdrawal of the appeal and immediately brought the proceedings to an end.