| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T020008.20080813 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 13 August 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0200/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97924969.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23D 9/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Liquid fatty component containing composition | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Unilever N.V., et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Forbes Medi-Tech Inc Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke GmbH & Co. KG |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This case relates to the decision of the Opposition Division orally announced on 26 October 2007 and issued in writing on 27 November 2007 concerning the rejection of the oppositions filed against European Patent No. 0 918 465.
The Appellant (Opponent 01) filed a notice of appeal on 24 January 2008 and paid the appeal fee on 25 January 2008.
No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed.
II. By a communication dated 14 May 2008, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. Attention was also drawn to Rule 101(1) EPC and to Art. 108 EPO. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No reply was received within this time-limit.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a ground of appeal, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Art. 108 EPC in conjunction with Rules 99(2) and 101(1) EPC.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
