T 0712/09 () of 11.1.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T071209.20100111
Date of decision: 11 January 2010
Case number: T 0712/09
Application number: 98112611.3
IPC class: A61F 5/448
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.523K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: An ostomy appliance
Applicant name: Coloplast A/S
Opponent name: Hollister Incorporated
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (opponent) appealed against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division dated 14 January 2009 concerning maintenance of the European Patent No. 0 894 482 in amended form.

II. The notice of appeal was received on 24 March 2009 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. However, no statement of grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit, nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.

III. In a communication dated 29 June 2009 sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, as a consequence, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was also given a time limit of two months for filing observations starting from the date of notification of said communication.

IV. The communication was notified on 1st July 2009. No observations were filed within the given time limit.

Reasons for the Decision

1. According to Article 108 EPC, a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision.

2. If the appeal does not comply with Article 108 EPC, the appeal must be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC). In the present case, no statement of grounds has been filed and consequently the appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation