T 0812/15 () of 14.10.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T081215.20151014
Date of decision: 14 October 2015
Case number: T 0812/15
Application number: 99310611.1
IPC class: H04R 25/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 220 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Blind source separation for hearing aids
Applicant name: Sivantos GmbH
Siemens Corporation
Opponent name: Oticon A/S / GN Resound A/S / Widex A/S
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
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against the decision of the opposition division dated 18 February 2015 according to which European patent No. 1017253 was revoked.

II. The appellants (patent proprietors) filed a notice of appeal on 20 April 2015 and paid the appeal fee the same day.

III. A statement of grounds of appeal had to be filed by 29 June 2015.

IV. In a communication dated 13 July 2015, received by the appellants on 14 July 2015, the registrar 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.

V. No reply to the communication was received.

Reasons for the Decision

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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