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 0759/07 (Detergent cellulases/HENKEL) of 13.3.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T075907.20080313
Date of decision: 13 March 2008
Case number: T 0759/07
Application number: 96914993.9
IPC class: C12N 9/42
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.806K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Detergents comprising cellulases
Applicant name: Henkel Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien
Opponent name: NOVOZYMES A/S
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The opponent (appellant) on 3 May 2007 filed a notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 19 March 2007, whereby the European patent No. 0 827 534 - based on the European patent application No. 96 914 993.9 (published as WO 96/34092) and entitled "Detergents comprising cellulases" - was maintained on the basis of a fourth auxiliary request filed on 30 November 2006 at the oral proceedings before the opposition division. The appeal fee was also paid on 3 May 2007.

II. In the notice of appeal it was requested that the impugned decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked in its entirety. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 5 November 2007 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed by the Registry of the board that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC. The appellant did not reply to said communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.

IV. In a telephone conversation held on 12 March 2007 between the appellant's representative and the registrar of the board, the representative confirmed that no request for re-establishment of rights had been filed.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, and as the notice of appeal does not contain any statements that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC and to Rule 99(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation