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 0914/06 () of 6.11.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T091406.20081106
Date of decision: 06 November 2008
Case number: T 0914/06
Application number: 96924367.4
IPC class: C07D 207/34
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.778K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Form III Crystalline R-(R*,R*) -2-(4-fluorophenyl)-beta-delta-dihydroxy-5-(1-methyl-ethyl)-3-phenyl-4-(phenylamino)carbonyl-1H-pyrrole-1-heptanoic acid hemi calcium salt (atorvastatin)
Applicant name: Warner-Lambert Company LLC
Opponent name: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
LEK Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company d.d.
Board: 3.3.01
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. The appeal is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 31 March 2006 maintaining the European patent No. 0 848 704 in amended form.

The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 12 June 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement within the meaning of Article 108 EPC 1973, third sentence.

II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery on 14 September 2006 and received by the appellant on 18 September 2006 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. The attention of the appellant was also drawn to Rule 84a EPC 1973 and to Article 122 EPC 1973.

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

Reasons for the Decision

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 statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973. Thus the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC 1973 in conjunction with Article 108 EPC 1973, third sentence.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation