T 0189/11 () of 2.5.2012

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T018911.20120502
Date of decision: 02 May 2012
Case number: T 0189/11
Application number: 00977742.6
IPC class: A24D 1/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 17.508K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Smoking article comprising a wrapper containing a ceramic material
Applicant name: British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
Opponent name: Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
Board: 3.2.04
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 appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office concerning maintenance of European patent No. 1237428 in amended form. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to each party on 16 November 2010.

The Appellant (Patent Proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 26 January 2011 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed.

II. By a communication dated 3 May 2011 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation