Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0445/06 () of 10.1.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T044506.20070110
Date of decision: 10 January 2007
Case number: T 0445/06
Application number: 95302880.0
IPC class: A61L 27/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.423K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Tubular polytetrafluoroethylene implantable prostheses
Applicant name: Meadox Medicals, Inc.
Opponent name: AESCULAP AG & Co. KG
Board: 3.3.10
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In its interlocutory decision dated 17 January 2006 the Opposition Division decided that the European patent No. 0 698 395 as amended met the requirements of the EPC.

II. The Patent Proprietor (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 24 March 2006 against the decision of the Opposition Division and paid the appeal fee on 22 March 2006. No statement of grounds was filed within the prescribed period in accordance with Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 30 June 2006 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 it was to be expected that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

IV. No reply from the Appellant was received within this time-limit.

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).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation