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 0559/05 () of 25.1.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T055905.20060125
Date of decision: 25 January 2006
Case number: T 0559/05
Application number: 94119080.3
IPC class: C08B 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.375K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Pectin process and composition
Applicant name: CP Kelco APS
Opponent name: DANISCO A/S
Board: 3.3.03
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 of the European Patent Office dated 20 January 2005 and posted 2 March 2005, revoking the European patent No. 664 300. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received 4 May 2005 and paid the fee for appeal 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.

II. By a communication dated 5 August 2005 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer to the Registry's communication has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

As a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has not been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible, (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation