14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T101213.20140109|
|Date of decision:||09 January 2014|
|Case number:||T 1012/13|
|IPC class:||G01F 23/292|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||CONFOCAL LIQUID LEVEL MEASUREMENT|
|Applicant name:||Life Technologies Corporation|
|Opponent name:||Eppendorf AG|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the opposition division dated 15 February 2013 rejecting the opposition filed against European patent No. 1761747.
The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 24 April 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The appellant requested setting aside of the decision under appeal 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 communication dated 9 July 2013, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
III. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds within the meaning of Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC.
In addition, the lack of any substantive response to the notification of inadmissibility of the appeal is considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings made on an auxiliary basis in the notice of appeal (see decision T 1042/07, point 3 of the reasons).
In view of the above considerations, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.