T 0154/02 () of 11.10.2002

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T015402.20021011
Date of decision: 11 October 2002
Case number: T 0154/02
Application number: 87311547.1
IPC class: H01P 1/12
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Versions: Unpublished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: R-switch with transformers
Applicant name: COM DEV LTD.
Opponent name: Bosch Telecom GmbH
Board: 3.5.01
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 interluctory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the parties on 14 December 2001 and concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 0 276 582 in amended form.

The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal by a letter received on 8 February 2002 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 4 July 2002, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds has 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.

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:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation