T 0871/10 () of 17.1.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T087110.20110117
Date of decision: 17 January 2011
Case number: T 0871/10
Application number: 00963125.0
IPC class: C08L 23/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 13.519K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A thermoplastic vulcanisate, the thermoplastic vulcanisate containing a foaming agent and foam of the thermoplastic vulcanisate
Applicant name: DSM IP Assests B.V.
Opponent name: Mitsui Chemicals Inc.
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention Art 101(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 dated 16 December 2009 and posted 8 February 2010 concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 1234003 in amended form.

The Patent Proprietor filed a Notice of Appeal on 19 April 2010 and paid the prescribed fee for appeal on the same date.

No statement of Grounds of Appeal was filed by the Appellant. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 99(2) EPC.

II. By a communication dated 27 July 2010 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds of Appeal had been filed and that its appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was given the opportunity of filing observations within 2 months.

III. No answer to the Registry's communication has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed by the Appellant, and its Notice of Appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds of Appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 99(2) EPC, its appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation