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 1695/08 (Vascular endothelial cell growth factor antagonists/GENENTECH) of 14.11.2012

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T169508.20121114
Date of decision: 14 November 2012
Case number: T 1695/08
Application number: 99968115.8
IPC class: A61K 39/395
A61K 38/17
A61P 7/10
C07K 19/00
C07K 14/71
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 90.764K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Vascular endothelial cell growth factor antagonists and uses thereof
Applicant name: Genentech, Inc.
Opponent name: PFIZER LIMITED OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds of appeal


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 dated 4 July 2008 to maintain the European patent No. 1140173 amended pursuant to Articles 101(3)(a) and 106(2) EPC.

II. Appellant I (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 15 September 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

III. Appellant II (opponent O1) filed a notice of appeal on 1 September 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

IV. No statement of grounds was filed by the appellant II (opponent O1). The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

V. By communication dated 10 December 2008, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed appellant II that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. Appellant II was invited to file observations within two months.

VI. Appellant II filed no observations in response to said communication.

VII. Appellant I (patent proprietor) withdrew its appeal on 13 November 2012.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal of appellant II has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC, third sentence, in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal of appellant II is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation