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 1334/12 (Subscriber-based charging rules/HUAWEI) of 12.9.2012

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T133412.20120912
Date of decision: 12 September 2012
Case number: T 1334/12
Application number: 05754868.7
IPC class: H04L 12/14
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 207.970K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Applicant name: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Opponent name: Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)
Board: 3.5.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division, posted 19 January 2012, concerning the maintenance of the European patent No. 1622304 in amended form.

II. Notice of appeal was received on 5 March 2012 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. The notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.

III. A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.

IV. With a communication dated 19 June 2012, the board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was further informed that any observations should be filed within two months.

V. The appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

VI. With a letter dated 10 September 2012, the appellant withdrew the request for oral proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC,

the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation