T 2584/12 () of 6.9.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T258412.20130906
Date of decision: 06 September 2013
Case number: T 2584/12
Application number: 05718420.2
IPC class: A61M 1/36
A61M 5/168
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 90 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Infusion device with a controller
Applicant name: Gambro Lundia AB
Opponent name: Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (opponent) contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division posted on 31 October 2012 concerning maintenance of the European Patent No. 1 737 514 in amended form.

II. The notice of appeal was received on 12 December 2012 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal has been filed.

III. By a communication dated 25 March 2013 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, as a consequence, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was also given a time limit of two months for filing observations.

IV. No answer has been given to this communication.

Reasons for the Decision

According to Article 108 EPC, a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision.

If the appeal does not comply with Article 108 EPC, the appeal must be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

In the present case, no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as such.

Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation