T 2349/17 - Article 133(2) and party as of right

 Key points

• The opponent appeals. Opponent 2 (party to the proceedings as of right), did not make any submissions or filed any requests during the appeal proceedings.
• “[The] Board indicated to the parties that it had been informed by the former representatives of opponent 2 that they were no longer mandated in this matter and pointed to the stipulations of Article 133 (2) and (3) EPC regarding the representation of parties. No reaction from opponent 2 to that communication took place.” No one appeared for Opponent 2 at the oral proceedings.
• The Board finds claim 1 to be not inventive and revokes the patent.
• This case illustrates that there is no particular deficiency if a party as of right is no longer represented in the course of the appeal proceedings thereby no longer meeting the requirements of Article 133(2) EPC.
• Incidentally,  PCT application filed in 2002, Notice of opposition filed in 2009, this is the second appeal after remittal.

T 2349/17 -  

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t172349eu1.html

XI. With letter of 29 April 2021, the Board indicated to the parties that it had been informed by the former representatives of opponent 2 that they were no longer mandated in this matter and pointed to the stipulations of Article 133 (2) and (3) EPC regarding the representation of parties. No reaction from opponent 2 to that communication took place.

XII. Oral proceedings were held in Munich on 6 July 2021 in the presence of the appellant and the respondent. Although duly summoned, no one appeared for the party as of right. At the beginning of the oral proceedings the respondent withdrew its objection that the appeal be deemed not to have been filed.