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 0621/05 () of 16.3.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T062105.20060316
Date of decision: 16 March 2006
Case number: T 0621/05
Application number: 96939832.0
IPC class: C07C 249/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 50.617K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Process for the preparation of methoxyminophenylglyoxylic acid derivatives
Applicant name: Bayer CropScience AG
Opponent name: BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Board: 3.3.10
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. In its decision dated 1 March 2005 the Opposition Division maintained the European patent No. 0 874 807 in amended form.

II. The Proprietor, Bayer CropScience AG, filed a notice of appeal on 10 May 2005 against the decision of the Opposition Division and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed within the prescribed period in accordance with Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 17 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.

IV. No reply from the Appellant was received within this time-limit.

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 (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