T 0675/01 () of 17.12.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T067501.20011217
Date of decision: 17 December 2001
Case number: T 0675/01
Application number: 89305107.8
IPC class: B32B 27/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
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Versions: Unpublished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: Multi-layer packaging film and process
Applicant name: Cryovac, Inc.
Opponent name: Dixie-Union GmbH & Co. KG
Board: 3.3.07
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. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 4 April 2001 rejecting the opposition filed against European patent No. 0 343 877 pursuant to Article 102(2) EPC.

The opponent (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 15. June 2001 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 27 August 2001, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the registry's communication.

IV. By letter dated 13 November 2001 the appellant withdrew the auxiliary request for oral proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, 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