T 0278/21 () of 16.9.2021

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T027821.20210916
Date of decision: 16 September 2021
Case number: T 0278/21
Application number: 12799164.4
IPC class: C08F 210/16
C08J 5/18
C08F 2/34
C08F 4/659
C08F 4/6592
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 238 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: NOVEL POLYMERS
Applicant name: Ineos Europe AG
Opponent name: The Dow Chemical Company
Total Research & Technology Feluy
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
T 1042/07
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the opposition division posted on 13 January 2021 revoking European patent 2791189.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 22 March 2021 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. While the notice of appeal contained a request for oral proceedings, no separate statement of grounds of appeal was filed.

III. By a communication dated 30 June 2021, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had 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 invited to file observations within two months.

IV. No reply was received. No request for re-establishment

of rights was filed.

Reasons for the Decision

1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108, third sentence, and Rule 99(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

2. In accordance with case law (T 1042/07 of 22 August 2008) the request for oral proceedings is deemed withdrawn or superseded by the subsequent failure to react to the Board's communication.

3. In the specific circumstances of the present case, where the appellant has not provided any statement as to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given any explanation or comment as to why no statement of grounds had been filed, and has not reacted in substance to the Board's notification of an impending rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the Board considers the initial auxiliary request for oral proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of the subsequent course of action taken. The lack of any substantive response to the notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is thus considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings.

4. For the above reason, the decision could be rendered without oral proceedings.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation