|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T041306.20061214|
|Date of decision:||14 December 2006|
|Case number:||T 0413/06|
|IPC class:||C11D 3/386|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Detergent composition comprising lipase enzyme and cationic surfactant|
|Applicant name:||THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY|
|Opponent name:||HENKEL KGaA|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 10 January 2006, revoking the European patent No. 934 391 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC.
The Appellant (Patentee) filed a notice of appeal on 20 March 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC.
The notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
No further submissions were filed by the Appellant.
In a communication dated 16 June 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, The Board informed the Appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.
The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.
No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Board's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC, 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.