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 1125/06 () of 5.2.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T112506.20070205
Date of decision: 05 February 2007
Case number: T 1125/06
Application number: 97921367.5
IPC class: A61K 31/20
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.260K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Prevention and treatment of cachexia and anorexia
Opponent name: Numico Research B.V.
Board: 3.3.02
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 contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 12 May 2006 rejecting the opposition filed against the European patent No. 0 914 111. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 9 May 2006. The Opponent filed a notice of appeal by fax on 21 July 2006, and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed by the last permissible date, 22 September 2006, or at all. 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 27 October 2006 and sent by registered post, 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 communication invited the Appellant to file observations within two months and also drew its attention to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).

III. The Appellant has neither filed any observations in response to the said communication nor made a request for re-establishment of rights.

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