T 1578/14 () of 16.3.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T157814.20150316
Date of decision: 16 March 2015
Case number: T 1578/14
Application number: 07010418.7
IPC class: F16K 31/06
F16K 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 216.201K)
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Versions: Unpublished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 apparatus for monitoring and determining the functional status of an electromagnetic valve
Applicant name: Festo AG & Co. KG
Opponent name: Areva GmbH
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)
European Patent Convention R 126(2)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The patent proprietor filed a notice of appeal on 21 July 2014 against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 9 May 2014. The appeal fee was paid on the same day.

II. By communication of 21 November 2014, received by the appellant, the registry of the board informed the appellant 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 appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

III. 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