T 1417/12 05-04-2013
Download and more information:
Piping bag, blank for manufacturing a piping bag and method for manufacturing a piping bag
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.
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.