T 1582/05 (Foodstuff/DANISCO) of 18.5.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T158205.20060518
Date of decision: 18 May 2006
Case number: T 1582/05
Application number: 99931410.7
IPC class: C12P 7/64
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Foodstuff
Applicant name: DANISCO A/S
Opponent name: Novozymes A/S
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeals contest the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 3 November 2005 concerning maintenance of European Patent No. 1 098 988 in amended form.

The appellant I (patentee) filed a notice of appeal on 21 December 2005 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

The appellant II (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 3 January 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No statements of grounds were filed by appellants I and II. Their notices of appeal contain nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By communications dated 12 May 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellants I and II that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeals could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellants were invited to file observations within two months.

Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statements setting out the grounds of appeal have been filed, the appeals of appellants I and II have to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeals of appellants I and II are rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation