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 1237/06 () of 29.3.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T123706.20070329
Date of decision: 29 March 2007
Case number: T 1237/06
Application number: 97122211.2
IPC class: A61K 31/665
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.157K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Anti-stress agent for animals comprising an ascorbic acid derivative
Opponent name: BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Board: 3.3.02
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 of the European Patent Office dated 1 June 2006 revoking the European patent No. 0 848 955. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 29 May 2006. The Patent proprietor filed a notice of appeal by letter on 9 August 2006, and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed by the last permissible date, 12 October 2006, or at all. 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 17 November 2006 and sent by registered post, 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 communication invited the Appellant to file observations within two months and also drew its attention to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).

III. The Appellant has neither filed any observations in response to the said communication nor made a request for re-establishment of rights.

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