14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T138210.20110316|
|Date of decision:||16 March 2011|
|Case number:||T 1382/10|
|IPC class:||A61M 1/36|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Method and device for detecting the detachment of the venous needle from a patient during dialysis|
|Applicant name:||Gambro Lundia AB|
|Opponent name:||Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appellant (opponent) appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 15 April 2010 rejecting the opposition filed against European Patent No. 1 399 204.
II. The notice of appeal was received on 24 June 2010 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. The appellant requested that the decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked. As an auxiliary request the appellant requested oral proceedings in case the above requests could not be granted.
The appellant further mentioned that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal will be filed later on. However, no statement of grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit for doing so, nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.
III. In a communication dated 4 October 2010 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 6 October 2010. 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 setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and consequently the appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
3. In the notice of appeal oral proceedings were requested as an auxiliary measure in case the patent could not be revoked. As no statement of the grounds of appeal was filed, this auxiliary request is without object.
No request for oral proceedings was formulated after the communication dated 4 October 2010. The appeal can thus be rejected as inadmissible in a written procedure.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.