| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T216214.20180201 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 01 February 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2162/14 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04783854.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04L 29/06 H04L 29/12 H04L 12/28 H04L 12/46 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method for communicating over the internet with geographically distributed devices | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Rovi Solutions Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal - statement of grounds (not filed) Request for oral proceedings in the notice of appeal |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This case concerns appeals directed against the decision of the opposition division of 19 September 2014, posted on the same day.
II. Appeals were filed by both the proprietor and the opponent. However, the appeal of the opponent as well as its party status in these proceedings was withdrawn by fax letter dated 9 November 2017. Only the appeal of the proprietor is therefore pending (hereinafter, "appellant").
III. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 19 November 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
IV. In the notice of appeal the appellant requested "that the Decision be set aside in respect of the aspects of the Decision which adversely affected the Proprietor".
In addition, the notice of appeal states: "Oral proceedings are requested as part of the Appeal procedure".
V. By communication of 10 February 2015 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery and received by the appellant, the registry of the board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not 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 informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
VI. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
1. No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
2. In the notice of appeal the appellant requested oral proceedings pursuant to Article 116 EPC. However, the appellant subsequently did not provide any statement as to the substantive merits of the appeal, gave no explanation or comments as to why no statement of grounds had been filed, and did not react to the board's communication of the impending rejection of the appeal as inadmissible. As a consequence of the appellant's inaction, in particular the lack of any response to the board's communication, the board considers that the request for oral proceedings has been implicitly abandoned (cf. T 1042/07, point 3 of the reasons).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal of the proprietor is rejected as inadmissible.
