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 1071/15 () of 15.1.2016

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T107115.20160115
Date of decision: 15 January 2016
Case number: T 1071/15
Application number: 07106875.3
IPC class: A47J 31/00
B65D 85/804
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 217.454K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method for preparation of a creamy milk based beverage from a capsule and kit for such preparation
Applicant name: Nestec S.A.
Opponent name: Kraft Foods Group, Inc.
Board: 3.2.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
Keywords: -


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 27 March 2015, posted on 8 April 2015. The appellant filed the notice of appeal on 22 May 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

II. By communication of 31 August 2015, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

III. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds indicating the reasons for setting the decision aside, the extent to which it is to be amended, or the facts and evidence relied on, as is required Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation