Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 2183/10 () of 12.5.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T218310.20110512
Date of decision: 12 May 2011
Case number: T 2183/10
Application number: 04029273.2
IPC class: B23K 26/10
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.708K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A method and device for laser welding
Applicant name: COMAU S.p.A.
Opponent name: Daimler AG
TRUMPF Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH + Co. KG
KUKA Systems GmbH
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Inadmissibility of the appeal


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This matter concerns an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division posted on 13 August 2010, concerning the maintenance of European Patent No. 1 568 436 in an amended form.

II. The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 22 October 2010 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

III. In a communication dated 27 January 2011 sent by registered letter, with advice of delivery indicating reception by the appellant on 2 February 2011, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that it could be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

IV. No answer to the Registry's communication was received.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, third sentence, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation