T 1417/12 () of 5.4.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T141712.20130405
Date of decision: 05 April 2013
Case number: T 1417/12
Application number: 05002442.1
IPC class: B65D 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 89.403K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Piping bag, blank for manufacturing a piping bag and method for manufacturing a piping bag
Applicant name: Kee Plastics AB
Opponent name: One Way Plastics B.V.
Board: 3.2.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention Art 108 Sent 3
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 13 April 2012 concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 1 598 281 in amended form.

The proprietor (hereinafter appellant/proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 21 June 2012 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No statement of grounds was filed.

The opponent (hereinafter appellant/opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 22 June 2012 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 12 October 2012 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellant/proprietor that no statement of grounds had been filed and that its appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant/proprietor was invited to file observations within two months.

By a communication dated 12 October 2012 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellant/opponent that no statement of grounds had been filed and that its appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant/opponent was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given to the registry's communication, neither by the appellant/proprietor nor by the appellant/opponent.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The notice of appeal of the appellant/proprietor filed On 21 June 2012 contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

The notice of appeal of the appellant/opponent filed on 22 June 2012 contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

2. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, neither by the appellant/ proprietor nor by the appellant/opponent, the appeals have to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC, third sentence, in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeals of the appellant/proprietor and the appellant/ opponent are rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation