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 0314/08 () of 1.8.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T031408.20080801
Date of decision: 01 August 2008
Case number: T 0314/08
Application number: 01910570.9
IPC class: C09J 189/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.547K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Vegetable protein adhesive compositions
Applicant name: Heartland Resource Technologies LLC
Opponent name: Cargill, Inc.
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: -


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This case relates to the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division dated 16 November 2007 concerning the maintenance of European Patent No. 1 268 702 in amended form.

The Appellant (Opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 28 January 2008 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In its notice of appeal the Appellant announced that detailed arguments in support of the appeal would be submitted in due course.

However, no separate statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 9 May 2008, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, 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. Attention was also drawn to Rule 101(1) EPC and to Art. 108 EPC. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No reply was received within this time-limit.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the Appellant having not reacted within the time-limit given in the communication issued by the Board, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Art. 108 EPC in conjunction with Rules 99(2) and 101(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation