Key points
- "There is a divergence between the name, the legal structure and the address of the legal persons named as opponent and as appellant in the proceedings."
- "in the notice of appeal, dated 16 July 2024, and in the statement of grounds of appeal, dated 17 September 2024, and in the letter withdrawing the request for oral proceedings, dated 19 March 2025, the appellant was indicated to be: Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy GmbH & Co. KG."
"This does not correspond to the notice of opposition which was filed, although on business paper of the appellant, explicitly in the name and on behalf of: Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Deutschland GmbH"
"There seems to be no doubt that the latter company acted as the opponent and remained party to the entire opposition proceedings."
"A transfer of the status of opponent was never declared and substantiated nor are there any facts on file that might allow for the conclusion that the appellant must be the universal successor of the opponent."
" There is also no room for interpretation with regard to the appellant's identity that was consistently indicated in the appeal proceedings. No facts and arguments have been submitted in appeal proceedings as to why the appellant should not be the person named in the three written submissions mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above."
"The appellant had no right to appeal."
According to Article 107 EPC, only parties to the proceedings may appeal. As set out above, the appellant was never a party to the opposition proceedings."
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
No correction under Rule 139 EPC was requested, it seems.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do not use hyperlinks in comment text or user name. Comments are welcome, even though they are strictly moderated (no politics). Moderation can take some time.