14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T244110.20110614|
|Date of decision:||14 June 2011|
|Case number:||T 2441/10|
|IPC class:||G01M 1/00
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||WHEEL BALANCER WITH SERVO MOTOR|
|Applicant name:||HUNTER ENGINEERING COMPANY|
|Opponent name:||Snap-On Equipment GmbH|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is against the decision of the opposition division dated 20 July 2010 revoking European patent No. 0877920.
The former (and sole) opponent withdrew its opposition prior to the decision under appeal.
The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 17 August 2010 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The appellant requested setting aside of the decision under appeal and the maintenance of the patent as granted or in amended form and, on an auxiliary basis, oral proceedings.
No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 21 December 2010 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal was expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
By letter dated 17 May 2011 the appellant withdrew its auxiliary request for oral proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
Whilst the notice of appeal was filed within the time limit set out in Article 108 EPC and the appeal fee was also paid within that time limit, no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 108 EPC. In addition, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal within the meaning of Article 108 and Rule 99(2) EPC.
In reply to the Registry's communication dated 21 December 2010, the appellant expressly withdrew its previous request for oral proceedings and made no comment on the issue of the admissibility of the appeal.
In view of the above considerations, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.