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 1446/09 () of 20.4.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T144609.20100420
Date of decision: 20 April 2010
Case number: T 1446/09
Application number: 02025030.4
IPC class: B62M 9/12
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.635K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Bicycle derailleur
Applicant name: SHIMANO INC.
Opponent name: SRAM Deutschland GmbH
Board: 3.2.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision posted 16 April 2009 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. 1 281 610 and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 26 June 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC.

III. By a communication dated 17 September 2009, sent by registered post with advice of delivery and acknowledgement of receipt, 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.

IV. No observations were received in response to said communication either within the set time limit or within the three months after expiry of the time limit provided by Rule 133 EPC.

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. The appeal therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation