|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T057421.20210830|
|Date of decision:||30 August 2021|
|Case number:||T 0574/21|
|IPC class:||H01L 23/10
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||3d integrated electronic device structure including increased thermal dissipation capabilities|
|Applicant name:||Menlo Microsystems, Inc.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the refusal of European patent application No. 12185346.9 posted on 1 December 2020.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 1 February 2021 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. While the notice of appeal contained a request for oral proceedings, no separate statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
III. By a communication dated 20 May 2021, sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had 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 invited to file observations within
IV. No reply was received. No request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has
been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain
anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of
appeal according to Article 108, third sentence, and Rule 99(2)
EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article
108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
In accordance with case law, namely decision T 1042/07 of
22 August 2008, the request for oral proceedings is deemed
withdrawn or superseded by the subsequent failure to react to
the Board's communication:
"In the specific circumstances of the present case,
where the appellant has not provided any statement as
to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given
any explanation or comment as to why no statement of
grounds had been filed, and has not reacted in
substance to the Board's notification of an impending
rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the Board
considers the initial auxiliary request for oral
proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of
the subsequent course of action taken. In other words,
the lack of any substantive response to the
notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is
considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the
request for oral proceedings."
For the above reason, the decision could be rendered without
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.