Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0508/04 () of 21.12.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T050804.20041221
Date of decision: 21 December 2004
Case number: T 0508/04
Application number: 95610027.5
IPC class: C22C 38/44
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.789K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Duplex stainless steel with high corrision resistance
Applicant name: Park, Yong Soo
Opponent name: Sandvik AB
Edelstahl Witten Krefeld GmbH
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 6 February 2004 concerning the revoking of the European patent No. 0 683 241, granted in respect of the European patent application No. 95 610 027.5.

II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 16 April 2004. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 21 July 2004, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observation within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

IV. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible according to Article 108 EPC last sentence in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation