|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T101808.20100709|
|Date of decision:||09 July 2010|
|Case number:||T 1018/08|
|IPC class:||B60Q 1/22|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Reversing alarm|
|Applicant name:||Brigade Electronics Plc, et al|
|Opponent name:||Sound Alert Limited|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal (no)|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The European patent No. 1 289 798 was maintained in amended form by the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 9 April 2008. Respective appeals against this decision were filed by the Patentees (Appellants I) and by the Opponent (Appellant II) on 1 June 2008 and on 16 June 2008 respectively. The respective appeal fees were paid on 2 June 2008 and on 16 June 2008. The Patentees filed the statement of grounds of appeal on 8 August 2008. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed by the Opponent within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC.
II. By a communication dated 16 September 2008, sent by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt, the Registry of the Board informed the Opponent that it appeared that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The Opponent was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No observations were received in response to said communication.
IV. Oral proceedings were held on 9 July 2010. The Opponent did not attend the oral proceedings. The Board discussed the matter with the Patentees and after the debate the Patentees withdrew their appeal.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed by the Opponent. Furthermore, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC. The appeal of the Opponent therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal of the Appellant II (Opponent) is rejected as inadmissible.