14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T012407.20071127|
|Date of decision:||27 November 2007|
|Case number:||T 0124/07|
|IPC class:||A61K 7/50|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Liquid cleansing composition comprising soluble, lamellar phase inducing structurant|
|Applicant name:||UNILEVER PLC, et al|
|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 19 December 2006, revoking the European patent No. 839023 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC.
The Appellants (Patentees) filed a notice of appeal on 26 January 2007 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 Appellants.
In a communication dated 4 June 2007 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Board informed the Appellants 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 Appellants were 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.