T 0053/05 () of 13.9.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T005305.20050913
Date of decision: 13 September 2005
Case number: T 0053/05
Application number: 92914172.9
IPC class: A61F 2/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.820K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Treatment of diseases by site-specific instillation of cells or site-specific transformation of cells and kits therefor
Applicant name: The Regents of the University of Michigan
Opponent name: TRANSGENE S.A.
Board: 3.2.02
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 appeal is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office sent by letter dated 29 October 2004, maintaining the European patent No. 0 591 385 in amended form.

The Appellant (Proprietor) filed a Notice of Appeal on 27 December 2004 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 12 April 2005 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. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).

III. No answer to the Registry's communication has been received.

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.

Quick Navigation