| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T119800.20010717 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 July 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1198/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 94307518.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | D02G 3/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Hosiery and process for producing the same | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | TORAY INDUSTRIES, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | NYLSTAR SA | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In its decision dated 27 September 2000 and posted on 2. October 2000 the Opposition Division rejected the Opposition on Patent No. 0 648 873.
With Facsimile from 12 December 2000 the Appellant (Opponent) filed a Notice of Appeal against this Decision and paid the appeal fee on the same date. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
The 4 months period for filing a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC ended on 12 February 2001. No Statement of Grounds arrived at the EPO by then.
II. By a communication dated 7 May 2001 and sent by registered letter, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the Appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No response to said communication was received by the EPO.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the Notice of Appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65[1] EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
