T 1129/06 () of 27.3.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T112906.20070327
Date of decision: 27 March 2007
Case number: T 1129/06
Application number: 00906180.5
IPC class: A61F 5/443
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.484K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: An ostomy applicance
Applicant name: COLOPLAST A/S
Opponent name: Hollister Incorporated
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is from the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division posted on 10 May 2006 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 1 164 983, granted in respect of European patent application No. 00 906 180.5.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 20 July 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 27 October 2006 sent by

registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement

of Grounds had 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 Rule 84a EPC(late receipt of documents) and to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).

IV. No answer to the registry's communication has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

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).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation