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 1679/13 () of 13.5.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T167913.20140513
Date of decision: 13 May 2014
Case number: T 1679/13
Application number: 01964744.5
IPC class: B32B 17/10
C03C 27/12
B44C 3/02
B44F 1/06
B41M 5/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 211.719K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Applicant name: Digiglass Pty. Ltd.
Opponent name: Glas Trösch AG
AGC Glass Europe
Board: 3.3.09
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. This appeal is against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 31 May 2013 concerning the maintenance of European patent No. 1 322 482 in amended form.

Opponent 1 (in the following: the appellant), Glas Trösch AG, filed a notice of appeal on 29 July 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

II. By a communication dated 30 October 2013, received by the appellant on 4 November 2013, 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 invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer to the registry's communication was received within this time limit.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided to this end 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 pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, 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.

Quick Navigation