T 0300/08 (Anti-cariogenic erythritol/CERESTAR) of 9.10.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T030008.20081009
Date of decision: 09 October 2008
Case number: T 0300/08
Application number: 97302763.4
IPC class: A61K 31/047
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.715K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Anti-cariogenic activity of erythritol and oral compositions comprising it
Applicant name: CERESTAR HOLDING BV
Opponent name: ROQUETTE FRERES, S.A.
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 30 November 2007, and concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 0800823 in amended form.

The Appellant (Proprietor) filed a Notice of Appeal by a letter received on 8 February 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No Statement of Grounds was filed. 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 27 May 2008, sent by registered post, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.

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 101(1) EPC (formerly Rule 65(1) EPC 1973)).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation