T 2067/16 () of 6.3.2017

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T206716.20170306
Date of decision: 06 March 2017
Case number: T 2067/16
Application number: 00920067.6
IPC class: A61F 13/00
A61M 1/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 222.209K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: VACUUM ASSISTED CLOSURE SYSTEM WITH PROVISION FOR INTRODUCTION OF AGENT
Applicant name: KCI Licensing, Inc.
Opponent name: Smith and Nephew, Inc.
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
-
Keywords: -
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 7 July 2016 revoking European Patent No. 1 168 997.

II. The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 7 September 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 2 December 2016, received by the appellant on 13 December 2016 (as confirmed by a notification of receipt signed by the appellant's representative), 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 informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply was received to the communication.

Reasons for the Decision

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 of appeal 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