T 1120/07 () of 25.2.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T112007.20080225
Date of decision: 25 February 2008
Case number: T 1120/07
Application number: 01128535.0
IPC class: B62D 25/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.704K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Radiator support structure of motor vehicle
Applicant name: Calsonic Kansei Corporation
Opponent name: Hella-Behr Fahrzeugsysteme GmbH
LANXESS Deutschland GmbH
Board: 3.2.01
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 directed against the decision posted 26 April 2007 according to which it was found that, account being taken of amendments made by the patent proprietor during the opposition proceedings, the European patent No. 1 211 164 and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC 1973.

The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 2 July 2007 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

II. By a communication dated 15 October 2007, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. In a letter dated 30 November 2007 the appellant stated that the statement of grounds was deliberately not filed.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed. Furthermore, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973. The appeal therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC 1973).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation