| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T322119.20200619 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 19 June 2020 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 3221/19 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 12874768.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F9/06 G06F9/44 G06F11/08 G06F11/10 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING DATA IN A CALL STACK | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | NXP USA, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Giesecke+Devrient Mobile Security GmbH | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.06 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | - | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the opposition division posted on 11 October 2019.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 10 December 2019 and paid the appeal fee on 9 December 2019.
III. By communication of 5 March 2020, receipt of which was confirmed 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 EPC, third sentence 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. With a notice from the European Patent Office dated 15 March 2020 updated on 1 May 2020, concerning the disruptions due to the COVID-19 outbreak and published in the EPO Official Journal, periods expiring on or after 15 March 2020 were extended for all parties and their representatives to 2 June 2020, this date being the first day following the end of the interval of dislocation within the meaning of Rule 134(2) EPC. The Board applies this extension to the two-month period for submitting observations in response to the above communication.
V. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement of 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.
