T 1478/23 20-12-2023

1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108, third sentence, EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

2. It is settled case-law that in the absence of anything that can be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal, the failure of an appellant to reply in substance to a notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered to be equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition, 2022, III.C.4.3.3; and e.g. T 1042/07). In the specific circumstances of the case at hand, where the appellant has not provided any statement as to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given any explanation or comment as to why no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed, and has not reacted to the notification of an impending rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the board considers the initial auxiliary request for oral proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of the subsequent course of action taken. In other words, the lack of any substantive response to the notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings.

3. For the above reasons, the decision can be rendered without holding oral proceedings and the case can be decided in written proceedings (Article 12(8) RPBA 2020).