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 1567/14 () of 3.3.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T156714.20150303
Date of decision: 03 March 2015
Case number: T 1567/14
Application number: 09718908.8
IPC class: G06Q 10/00
G06Q 30/02
G06Q 30/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 221.634K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Applicant name: Bi, Hongguag
Mattern, Julie
Jamieson, Eric
Meyer, Matt
Chau, Duc
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
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. The appellants contest the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office dated 7 January 2014 refusing European patent application No. 09718908.8.

The appellants filed a notice of appeal on 7 March 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

The notice of appeal contained an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.

A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such a statement.

II. In a communication dated 24 July 2014, the Board informed the appellants that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellants were informed that any observations should be filed within two months.

In the same communication the Board stated that it assumed that the appellants' request for oral proceedings did not apply to the issue of inadmissibility of the appeal because no grounds of appeal had been filed in due time and that this assumption would not be made if the appellants so stated within the specified period.

III. The appellants filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation