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 1780/06 () of 13.4.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T178006.20070413
Date of decision: 13 April 2007
Case number: T 1780/06
Application number: 98937141.4
IPC class: C12N 15/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.424K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Rapid subcloning using site-specific recombination
Opponent name: -
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


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicant (appellant) filed on 18 July 2006 a notice of appeal against the decision of the examining division dated 18 May 2006 whereby the European Patent application No. 98 937 141.4 (published as International application WO 00/05355) entitled "Rapid subcloning using site-specific recombination" was refused under Article 97(1) EPC for reason of non compliance with the requirements of Articles 54 and 56 EPC. The appeal fee was paid on 18 July 2006. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 22 December 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board of Appeal informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that therefore the appeal had to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. Attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC. The appellant did not reply to that communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed within the prescribed time limit.

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 pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC). Since the appeal is inadmissible, none of the requests in the notice of appeal, including the request for oral proceedings, can be considered.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation