Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0912/04 (Picosecond fiber laser/AGILENT) of 26.1.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T091204.20050126
Date of decision: 26 January 2005
Case number: T 0912/04
Application number: 94309093.6
IPC class: H01S 3/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.127K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Polarization independent picosecond fiber laser
Applicant name: Agilent Technologies, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)
Opponent name: Imra Anerica Inc.
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 24 March 2004, rejecting the opposition pursuant to Article 102(2) EPC.

II. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 3 June 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. The notice of appeal contains a reference to the appealed decision, and a request to set aside the impugned decision of the Opposition Division, and to revoke the patent as a whole. Oral proceedings are requested as an auxiliary measure. In the notice of appeal it is submitted that a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal will be filed within the due time limit.

III. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.

IV. By a communication dated 4 October 2004 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

V. There was no answer from the Appellant within the given time limit to the above communication.

VI. In response to a telephone inquiry on 18 January 2005 by the Registry of the Board, the representative of appellant confirmed that no Statement of Grounds had been filed by the appellant.

Reasons for the Decision

The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC. The reference to the grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal itself indicates that the grounds of appeal are not contained in the notice of appeal. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation