| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T018403.20031024 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 24 October 2003 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0184/03 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 90117192.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B32B 5/26 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Nonwoven fabric laminates | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Fiberweb North America, Inc. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 6. December 2002 concerning maintenance of the European Patent No. 0 416 620 in amended form.
The opponent (appellant 01) filed a notice of appeal on 6. February 2003 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By communication dated 9 May 2003, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the opponent that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.
The opponent was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer from the opponent to the Registry's communication has been received within the given time limit.
IV. The proprietor (appellant 02) filed a notice of appeal on 17. February 2003 (Monday) and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was received on 16 April 2003. The proprietor requested that the contested decision be set aside since the Opposition Division should not have considered lack of novelty which had not been originally substantiated as ground for opposition.
By communication dated 24 July 2003, the Board informed the parties of the possible further proceedings in this case. The opponent's appeal would be rejected as inadmissible since no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed. Concerning the proprietor's appeal, the Board could not share the proprietor's opinion that the contested decision should be set aside because the Opposition Division should not have considered lack of novelty.
The proprietor was invited to inform the Board within a period of two months whether the request for oral proceedings was maintained.
V. By letter dated 7 October 2003, the proprietor withdrew his appeal.
Reasons for the Decision
1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal of the opponent has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
2. The declaration of the proprietor is duly noted. The appeal proceedings concerning the appeal of the proprietor are thus closed. The order of the contested decision becomes res iudicata.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
3. The appeal of the opponent is rejected as inadmissible.
4. The appeal proceedings are terminated by the withdrawal of the appeal of the proprietor.
