http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t000238eu1.html
Content reproduced from the Website of the European Patent Office as permitted by their terms of use.
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T023800.20010124 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 24 January 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0238/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 93303135.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07C 51/12 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Process for the production of acetic acid from methanol and carbon monoxide using supported rhodium catalyst | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | CHIYODA CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | BP Chemicals Ltd | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | – | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
– |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 5 Janaury 2000 and concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 0 567 331 in amended form.
The Appellant (Opponent) filed a Notice of Appeal by letter received on 2 March 2000 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The Notice of Appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 19 July 2000, sent by registered letter, 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. The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to to the Registry’s communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible, (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.