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 0577/06 (Hearing aid/TU DELFT) of 26.2.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T057706.20070226
Date of decision: 26 February 2007
Case number: T 0577/06
Application number: 98951816.2
IPC class: H04R 25/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.685K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Hearing aid comprising an array of microphones
Applicant name: Technische Universiteit Delft
Varibel B.V.
Opponent name: Siemens AG
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
Keywords: Missing statements of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeals are from the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 16 February 2006 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 1025744, granted in respect of European patent application No. 98951816.2.

II. The appellants, ie. the patent proprietors (appellant I) and the opponent (appellant II), each filed a notice of appeal on 13 April 2006 and 26 April 2006, respectively. The payments of the appeal fee were recorded on the same days. Appellant II conditionally requested oral proceedings. No separate statements of grounds of appeal were filed.

III. By communications dated 1 August 2006, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellants that it appeared that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed - by either appellant - and that the appeals could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellants were invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC and Rule 84a EPC.

IV. No observations by either of the appellants were received within the time limit set.

V. In a submission on 9 February 2007 appellant II (opponent) withdrew its request for oral proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statements setting out the grounds of appeal have been filed, the appeals are inadmissible, Article 108 EPC, last sentence, in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeals are rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation