T 0890/08 () of 5.12.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T089008.20081205
Date of decision: 05 December 2008
Case number: T 0890/08
Application number: 99202155.0
IPC class: A23L 1/40
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.449K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Soup and sauce concentrates
Applicant name: Unilever N.V., et al
Opponent name: NESTEC S.A.
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: No statement of grounds filed - Rejection of appeal (yes)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This case relates to the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division dated 4 March 2008 concerning the maintenance of European Patent No. 0 970 620 in amended form on the basis of claims 1 to 15 according to auxiliary request 1 submitted in the oral proceedings on 6 February 2008.

The Appellant Unilever N.Y., one of the two Patent Proprietors, filed a notice of appeal on 29 April 2008 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In its notice of appeal the Appellant announced that a written statement setting out the grounds of appeal would be submitted in due course.

However, no separate statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 20 August 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 it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. Attention was 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, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Art. 108 EPC in conjunction with Rules 99(2) and 101(1) EPC.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation