T 2452/13 () of 15.9.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T245213.20140915
Date of decision: 15 September 2014
Case number: T 2452/13
Application number: 06759532.2
IPC class: C08J 7/04
C08L 29/04
C11D 17/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 208.446K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: FUNCTIONALIZED FILMS
Applicant name: The Procter & Gamble Company
Opponent name: Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Limited
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
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 is directed against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of 12 September 2013, posted on 10 October 2013, concerning the maintenance of European patent No. EP 1 879 949 in amended form.

II. The opponent (in the following: the appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 10 December 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 4 March 2014, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that no written statement of grounds of appeal had 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.

IV. No reply has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

As appears from the above, no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided for 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).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation