T 0060/13 - Oral proceedings not requested

Key points:

• The Board finds that proprietor did not request oral proceedings, and revokes the patent since no auxiliary requests were on file. The Board finds the statement that "if an oral hearing is to take place we wish to attend" does not constitute such a request. In the same way, the statement regarding the language used in "possible oral proceedings" and the request to use Swedish in oral proceedings, after having first stated that "we find it unnecessary to attend an oral proceeding" are considered to concern the modalities of oral proceedings, should these be appointed, and are therefore not seen to constitute a clear and unconditional request for oral proceedings.

EPO T 0060/13 -  link

4. For the above reasons the Board holds that contrary to the finding of the decision under appeal at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the European patent.

4.1 The respondent has not filed alternative requests nor requested a hearing before the Board issues an adverse decision. In this regard, the Board does not consider the respondent's statement in their response dated 2 August 2013 that "if an oral hearing is to take place we wish to attend" to constitute such a request. That statement merely states an intention to attend if oral proceedings prove necessary, i.e. if the Board is unlikely to accede to the main request of the appellant, who had for that eventuality requested oral proceedings. The indication in their later response (dated 30 March 2017) to the Board's communication of 3 February 2017 regarding the language used in "possible oral proceedings" and the request to use Swedish in oral proceedings, after having first stated that "we find it unnecessary to attend an oral proceeding" concerns the modalities of oral proceedings, should these be appointed, but is not seen to constitute a clear and unconditional request for oral proceedings.

4.2 The Board is further satisfied that by its communication the respondent was made aware of the central points underlying this decision and has also had sufficient opportunity to take a position thereon. It is thus satisfied that the requirements of Article 113(2) EPC have been met.

4.3 The Board thus revokes the patent pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.