| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T147823.20231220 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 20 December 2023 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1478/23 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 16871380.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G07F 17/18 G07F 13/06 G06Q 50/10 A45D 44/02 H04W 4/00 G06K 19/07 A45D 34/00 G06Q 30/06 B01F 9/00 B01F 13/10 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING, DISPENSING, AND MIXING BLENDED COMPOSITION FOR SKIN TREATMENT | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | L'OREAL | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.03 | ||||||||
| 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 refusal of European
patent application No. 16871380.8 posted on
3 March 2023.
II. The appellant filed notice of appeal on 5 May 2023 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The notice of appeal contained a request for oral proceedings on an auxiliary basis. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
III. By a communication of the board's registrar dated 18 August 2023, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had 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 invited to file observations within two months.
IV. No reply was received. No request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108, third sentence, EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
2. It is settled case-law that in the absence of anything that can be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal, the failure of an appellant to reply in substance to a notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered to be equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 10th edition, 2022, III.C.4.3.3; and e.g. T 1042/07). In the specific circumstances of the case at hand, where the appellant has not provided any statement as to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given any explanation or comment as to why no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed, and has not reacted to the notification of an impending rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the board considers the initial auxiliary request for oral proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of the subsequent course of action taken. In other words, the lack of any substantive response to the notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings.
3. For the above reasons, the decision can be rendered without holding oral proceedings and the case can be decided in written proceedings (Article 12(8) RPBA 2020).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
