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 0647/09 () of 11.12.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T064709.20091211
Date of decision: 11 December 2009
Case number: T 0647/09
Application number: 03027036.7
IPC class: C07D 213/73
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 14.976K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: 4-[(di)alkylamino] pyridines as heat stable supernucleophilic catalysts
Applicant name: Vertellus Specialties Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 109
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicant appealed against the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office dated 26 September 2008 refusing European patent application No. 03027036.7.

The notice of appeal was filed on 8 December 2008 and the appeal fee was paid 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. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.

II. In a communication dated 30 April 2009, the appellant was informed that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible, furthermore that any observations should be filed within two months.

III. The appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation