T 1599/05 () of 12.9.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T159905.20060912
Date of decision: 12 September 2006
Case number: T 1599/05
Application number: 87905893.1
IPC class: H04L 9/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 53 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Automated transaction system using microprocessor cards
Applicant name: PITNEY BOWES INC.
Opponent name: Francotyp-Postalia Aktiengesellschaft & Co.
Board: 3.5.03
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 5 August 2005 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 294 397, granted in respect of European patent application No. 87905893.1.

II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 14 October 2005. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day. The notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request for oral proceedings. No separate statement of grounds was filed.

III. By a communication dated 1 February 2006, 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 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 to the registry's communication within the time limit. In a letter dated 16 August 2006 the appellant withdrew its 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 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