T 0418/14 () of 23.10.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T041814.20141023
Date of decision: 23 October 2014
Case number: T 0418/14
Application number: 03808414.1
IPC class: A61B 5/15
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 210.353K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: CAP FOR A DERMAL TISSUE LANCING DEVICE
Applicant name: LifeScan, Inc.
Opponent name: Roche Diagnostics GmbH
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
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 decision of the Opposition Division posted on 5 December 2013.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on

14 February 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. As an auxiliary measure oral proceedings were requested in case the Board did not intend to revoke the opposed patent.

III. By communication of 7 May 2014, 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.

IV. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

V. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

1. 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 pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

2. In the notice of appeal the appellant requested oral proceedings as an auxiliary measure. This means that oral proceedings were requested in case the decision of the opposition division could not be set aside on the basis of the grounds still to be provided.

There is no room for interpreting this request as relating to the question of the admissibility of the appeal, which is a new procedural situation.

The attention of the appellant was drawn to this new procedural situation in the communication dated 7 May 2014 and it did not request oral proceedings in relation to the admissibility of the appeal.

Therefore the Board considers that the appeal can be dealt with in written proceedings only.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation