T 1198/00 () of 17.7.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T119800.20010717
Date of decision: 17 July 2001
Case number: T 1198/00
Application number: 94307518.4
IPC class: D02G 3/32
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 14 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Hosiery and process for producing the same
Applicant name: TORAY INDUSTRIES, INC.
Opponent name: NYLSTAR SA
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In its decision dated 27 September 2000 and posted on 2. October 2000 the Opposition Division rejected the Opposition on Patent No. 0 648 873.

With Facsimile from 12 December 2000 the Appellant (Opponent) filed a Notice of Appeal against this Decision and paid the appeal fee on the same date. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

The 4 months period for filing a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC ended on 12 February 2001. No Statement of Grounds arrived at the EPO by then.

II. By a communication dated 7 May 2001 and sent by registered letter, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the Appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No response to said communication was received by the EPO.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the Notice of Appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65[1] EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation