T 0469/13 () of 15.11.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T046913.20131115
Date of decision: 15 November 2013
Case number: T 0469/13
Application number: 06252981.3
IPC class: F16L 39/00
F16L 41/14
B64D 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 207 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Fittings with redundant seals for aircraft fuel lines, fuel tanks, and other systems
Applicant name: The Boeing Company
Opponent name: Airbus Operations Limited
Airbus SAS
Airbus Operations SAS
Airbus Operations GmbH
Airbus Operations SL
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
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 appeal is directed against the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 21 December 2012.

II. The joint appellants filed a notice of appeal on 21 February 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 31 July 2013, received by the appellants, the Registry of the Board informed the appellants that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellants were informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation