T 0824/13 () of 20.9.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T082413.20130920
Date of decision: 20 September 2013
Case number: T 0824/13
Application number: 02003577.0
IPC class: F16C 33/46
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 91 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Retainer for roller bearing
Applicant name: NSK LTD
Opponent name: Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG
Board: 3.2.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 126(2)
Keywords: Admissibility of the appeal
Late filed notice of appeal


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office rejecting the opposition of the Opponent Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG against the decision of the Examining Decision of the European Patent Office granting the European Patent No. 1233199. The contested decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 3 January 2013 and reached the applicant on 9 January 2013. The applicant filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 19 March 2013. The appeal fee was paid on the same day.

II. By a communication dated 10 April 2013 send by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registrar of the Board informed the appellant that the notice of appeal was not filed in due time and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellants attention was drawn to provision concerning the late receipt of documents pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 101(1) EPC. The applicant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer was received within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.

IV. By letter dated 15 July 2013 the patentee requested to reject the appeal as inadmissible.

Reasons for the Decision

As the appeal was not filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC, the appeal has to rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

The Board is thus not in a position to examine whether the impugned decision is wrong and whether or not the appellant was adversely affected by it.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation