T 0656/03 () of 23.6.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T065603.20040623
Date of decision: 23 June 2004
Case number: T 0656/03
Application number: 91901327.6
IPC class: C12N 15/12
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.033K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished | Unpublished v2
Title of application: A recombinant human factor VIII derivative
Applicant name: BIOVITRUM AB
Opponent name: Chiron Corporation
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The opponent (appellant I) filed on 30 April 2003 a notice of appeal against the decision of the opposition division dated 4 April 2003 concerning maintenance of the European Patent No. 506 757 in amended form pursuant to Articles 102(3) and 106(3) EPC. He paid the appeal fee on the same day. Oral proceedings were requested under Article 116 EPC prior to any written decision being issued which was adverse to the opponent. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 17 November 2003 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed appellant I that no statement of grounds had been filed and that therefore the appeal had to be rejected as inadmissible. Appellant I was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC. Appellant I was also asked on behalf of the Board to indicate whether or not he requested oral proceedings for the purpose of the discussion of the above mentioned deficiency. His attention was drawn to the fact that after a rejection of his appeal as inadmissible, he would remain a party as of right to the appeal proceedings, in view of the appeal filed by the patent proprietor (appellant II). In response to the board's communication, by letter of 14 January 2004, appellant I confirmed that his request for oral proceedings did not extend to any discussion of the deficiencies noted in the Board's communication of 17 November 2003.

Reasons for the Decision

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 EPC, 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 of appellant I (opponent) is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation