T 0937/06 (Modified carbon products/CABOT) of 13.3.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T093706.20070313
Date of decision: 13 March 2007
Case number: T 0937/06
Application number: 97930992.9
IPC class: C09C 1/56
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.475K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Modified carbon products and amphiphilic ions containing compositions
Opponent name: Degussa AG
Board: 3.3.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: No statement of grounds of appeal


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office posted on 3 April 2006, by virtue of which European Patent No. 0 909 296 was maintained in amended form.

The appellant (patentee) filed a notice of appeal on 13 June 2006 and paid the fee for the appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 18 September 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed by the Office that no statement of grounds of appeal appeared to have been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC. The appellant did not reply to said communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed by the appellant and as the notice of appeal does not contain any statement that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation