T 1724/16 - Article 133(2) and respondent

 Key points

• PCT application filed in 2000, Notice of opposition in 2013, so again the opposition appeal lasted after the expiry of the patent term, but that is not the focus of the present post.
• The OD rejected the opposition, the opponent appeals, the patentee does not respond. 
• “The proprietor did not reply to the statement of grounds of appeal. In a letter dated 17 August 2020 the proprietor's representative stated the following: "We hereby resign representation of this patent". In a communication dated 16 October 2020, duly notified to the proprietor and to the opponent's representative, the Board pointed out that the representation requirements of Article 133(2) EPC were no longer met in respect of the proprietor in the current appeal proceedings, and that until this deficiency was remedied, the proprietor could not take any valid procedural steps. The proprietor did not reply to this communication or to the Board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020.”
• The appeal is dismissed, i.e. the Board finds that claim 1 is inventive even without any comments or defence from patentee in appeal.
• This shows that lack of compliance of Article 133(2) EPC for the patentee as respondent does not affect the processing of the appeal as such, in particular, is not a ground for allowing the appeal or even revoking the patent.

T 1724/16 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t161724eu1.html

IX. The proprietor did not reply to the statement of grounds of appeal. In a letter dated 17 August 2020 the proprietor's representative stated the following: "We hereby resign representation of this patent". In a communication dated 16 October 2020, duly notified to the proprietor and to the opponent's representative, the Board pointed out that the representation requirements of Article 133(2) EPC were no longer met in respect of the proprietor in the current appeal proceedings, and that until this deficiency was remedied, the proprietor could not take any valid procedural steps. The proprietor did not reply to this communication or to the Board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020.