14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T127808.20090130|
|Date of decision:||30 January 2009|
|Case number:||T 1278/08|
|IPC class:||C12Q 1/00|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Rapid quantitative analysis of proteins or protein function in complex mixtures|
|Applicant name:||University of Washington|
|Opponent name:||Proteome Sciences plc|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal concerns the interlocutory decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office posted on 19 March 2008 according to which the European patent No. 1 105 117 in amended form complies with the requirements of the EPC.
II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 16 May 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
III. No statement of grounds was filed by the appellant. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
IV. By communication dated 4 September 2008, 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; further, the appellant was requested to make clear if the auxiliary request for oral proceedings was not intended to apply to the question of inadmissibility of the appeal as a consequence of the fact that a written statement of grounds of appeal has not been filed.
V. The appellant, by letter dated 11 September 2008, stated that the auxiliary request for oral proceedings was not intended to apply to the question of inadmissibility of the appeal as a consequence of the fact that a written statement of grounds of appeal has not been filed.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.