T 1101/03 () of 13.7.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T110103.20040713
Date of decision: 13 July 2004
Case number: T 1101/03
Application number: 95108537.2
IPC class: A61F 5/443
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Ostomy appliance with extrudable gasket
Applicant name: Dansac A/S
Opponent name: Coloplast A/S
Board: 3.2.02
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 is from the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division dated 21 August 2003 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 0 686 381, granted in respect of European patent application No. 95 108 537.2.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 21. October 2003. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded 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.

III. By a communication dated 6 February 2004, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds has been filed and that the appeal could he expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

IV. 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 according to Article 108 EPC last sentence in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation