T 1609/20 () of 15.9.2021

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T160920.20210915
Date of decision: 15 September 2021
Case number: T 1609/20
Application number: 10759220.6
IPC class: A61B 5/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 230 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: OPTICAL SPECTROSCOPY DEVICE FOR NON-INVASIVE BLOOD GLUCOSE DETECTION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF USE
Applicant name: St. Louis Medical Devices, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 112(2)
Keywords: -
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

During the appeal proceedings the European Patent Office issued a noting of loss of rights pursuant to Rule 112(1) EPC stating that the renewal fee for the eleventh year and the additional fee have not been paid in due time.

The applicant / appellant requested to confirm that the renewal fee for the eleventh year and the additional fee were paid in due time.

As a auxiliary measure it requested re-establishment in the time-limit to pay these fees and paid the fee for re-establishment. Finally it requested that fee for re-establishment be reimbursed if the renewal fee and the additional fee were considered to be paid in due time.

Reasons for the Decision

According to Rule 112(2) EPC if the party concerned considers that the finding of the European Patent Office is inaccurate, it may, within two months of the communication under Rule 112(1) EPC, apply for a decision on the matter. The European Patent Office shall take such decision only if it does not share the opinion of the party requesting it; otherwise, it shall inform that party. In this case the Board shares its opinion.

Since a decision on re-establishment was not to be taken, the fee for re-establishment has to be reimbursed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appellant is informed that the renewal fee

for the eleventh year and the additional fee were

paid in due time.

2. The fee for re-establishment is reimbursed.

Quick Navigation