| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T024809.20090810 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 10 August 2009 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0248/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97924521.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B32B 27/32 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Multilayer, High Barrier Laminate | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | SIG combibloc Systems GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Appeal inadmissible - no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This case relates to the decision of the Opposition Division announced orally on 8 October 2008 and issued in writing on 18 November 2008 concerning the rejection of the opposition filed against European Patent No. 0 896 555.
The Appellant (Opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 26 January 2009, paid the appeal fee on the same day, and announced the filing of the grounds of appeal in due course.
However, no statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time-limit set by Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 8 May 2009, 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. Attention was also drawn to Rule 101(1) EPC and to Article 108 EPC. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No reply was received within this time-limit.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the Appellant has not reacted within the time-limit given in the communication issued by the Registry, the appeal is considered inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rules 99(2) and 101(1) EPC.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
