| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T039220.20201202 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 02 December 2020 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0392/20 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 13706780.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G01N25/48 G01N21/84 G01N33/558 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | THERMAL CONTRAST ASSAY AND READER | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Regents of the University of Minnesota The Governing Council of the University of Toronto |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | Hoffmann Eitle S.L.U. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| 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 posted on 27 November 2019 to reject the opposition filed against European patent No. 2 810 052 pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.
II. The appellant filed notice of appeal on 7 February 2020 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 2 June 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, 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.
In the same communication, it was stated that the Board assumed, unless contradicted by the appellant in the specified period, that the appellant's request for oral proceedings did not apply to the issue of inadmissibility of the appeal because no grounds of appeal had been filed in due time.
IV. 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.
