| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T109401.20020429 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 29 April 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1094/01 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 92202185.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | E21B 43/26 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method of fracturing a subterranean formation | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | PUMPTECH N.V., et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | BJ Services Company | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 31 July 2001, maintaining the European patent No. 0 528 461 in amended form.
The Appellant (Opponent) filed a Notice of Appeal on 3. October 2001 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date.
No Statement of Grounds was filed.
II. By a communication dated 22 January 2002 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
Pursuant to Article 108 EPC, third sentence a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months after the date of notification of the decision. In the case under consideration this time limit ended on 10 December 2001.
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the Notice of Appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
