| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T052518.20181107 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 November 2018 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0525/18 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 12773358.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01J 37/02 B01J 37/03 B01J 35/00 B01J 20/18 B01J 23/42 B01J 23/44 B01D 53/94 B01J 29/06 B01J 29/068 B01J 29/74 B01J 29/76 B01J 35/04 F01N 3/20 F01N 3/28 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | OXIDATION CATALYST FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE EXHAUST GAS TREATMENT | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Johnson Matthey Public Limited Company Johnson Matthey Japan Godo Kaisha |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | Umicore AG & Co. KG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 November 2017, posted on 18 December 2017.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 21 February 2018 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 18 May 2018, 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.
IV. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
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 a 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).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
