T 2450/13 (Programming content reconstruction/KUSTIN) of 16.4.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T245013.20140416
Date of decision: 16 April 2014
Case number: T 2450/13
Application number: 08831750.8
IPC class: H04H 60/11
H04H 20/42
H04H 60/80
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 207.304K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Programming content reconstruction in a content delivery system
Applicant name: Kustin Corp.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 126(2)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing the European patent application 08831750.8. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the applicant on 28 June 2013.

II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 27 August 2013. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day.

III. No statement of grounds was filed.

IV. By a communication dated 18 December 2013, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

V. Apart from an acknowledgement of receipt of the communication no answer has been given to the registry's communication within the time limit.

VI. No request for oral proceedings was filed.

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