14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T143008.20090511|
|Date of decision:||11 May 2009|
|Case number:||T 1430/08|
|IPC class:||C12N 15/12|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Cloning and expression of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor|
|Applicant name:||THE MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK|
|Opponent name:||01) Ardana Bioscience Limited
02) Solvay Pharmaceuticals GmbH
03) AEterna Zentaris GmbH
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The patent proprietor (appellant I) filed on 13 August 2008 a notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 13 June 2008, whereby the European patent No. 647 275 (European application No. 93 915 447.2) with the title "Cloning and expression of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor" was maintained in amended form pursuant to Article 101(3)(a) EPC. The appeal fee was paid on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit specified in Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 11 December 2008 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, appellant I was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. Appellant I was invited to file observations within two months. The appellant did not reply to said communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
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 according to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal of appellant I (the patent proprietor) is rejected as inadmissible.