14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T226509.20100916|
|Date of decision:||16 September 2010|
|Case number:||T 2265/09|
|IPC class:||A61L 2/16|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Method for keeping a surface, object and/or installation free of pathogens|
|Applicant name:||Cornelis, Gielen|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Appeal fee not paid in due time
Appeal deemed not to have been filed
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. A notice of appeal was filed on 23 September 2009 by the Applicant (Appellant) against the decision of the Examining Division sent by post on 31 July 2009 refusing the European patent application 06 741 308.8. The notice of appeal was not accompanied by the payment of the appeal fee.
II. On 3 December 2009 the Registrar of the Board notified a loss of rights pursuant to Rule 112(1) EPC since the appeal fee had not been paid and that, consequently, the appeal was deemed not to have been filed.
III. With letter dated 14 December 2009 the Appellant stated that she had attached to her letter dated 22 September 2009 a cheque for the amount of 1270 Euros.
IV. With a communication dated 24 March 2010 the Board informed the Appellant that according to Article 1, point 2 of the Decision of the Administrative Council of the EPO of 25 October 2007 amending the Rules relating to Fees (OJ EPO, 11/2007, 533) the fees due to the Office denominated in Euros shall be paid only by payment or transfer to a bank account held by the office. The Appellant's attention was drawn to the fact that if the EPO had received a cheque for payment of the appeal fee, then the cheque would have been returned to the sender. The Board informed again the Appellant that since the appeal fee was not paid, the appeal was deemed not to have been filed (Article 108, second sentence, EPC).
V. In response to this communication of the Board the Appellant paid the appeal fee on 6 July 2010.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The Appellant paid the appeal fee on 6 July 2010. However, the time limit for payment of the appeal fee, namely within two months after the date of notification of the decision appealed from, expired on 12 October 2009 (Article 108 EPC, first and second sentence and Rule 126(2) EPC). The appeal fee was consequently paid after said time limit.
2. Since the appeal fee was not paid in due time, the appeal is deemed not to have been filed (Article 108 EPC, second sentence).
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal is deemed not to have been filed.
2. The appeal fee is reimbursed.