14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T215215.20170131|
|Date of decision:||31 January 2017|
|Case number:||T 2152/15|
|IPC class:||A61F 2/915|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Stent having helical elements|
|Applicant name:||OrbusNeich Medical, Inc.|
|Opponent name:||Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha
Boston Scientific Corporation
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals are directed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 September 2015, posted on 23 November 2015.
II. Appellant 1 (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 15 October 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The appeal of appellant 1 was withdrawn on 8 February 2016. With letter dated 10 February 2016 appellant 1 also withdrew the opposition.
III. Appellant 2 (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 3 February 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
IV. By communication of 17 May 2016, received by appellant 2, the Registry of the Board informed appellant 2 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. Appellant 2 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 by appellant 2 within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC.
2. 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.
3. Therefore, the appeal of appellant 2 has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal of appellant 2 (proprietor) is rejected as inadmissible.