T 1839/08 (Buccal Oral Spray/NOVADEL PHARMA) of 21.4.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T183908.20090421
Date of decision: 21 April 2009
Case number: T 1839/08
Application number: 97914779.0
IPC class: A61K 9/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.596K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Buccal Polar Spray
Applicant name: Novadel Pharma Inc.
Opponent name: Akzo Nobel N.V.
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the opposition division dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 11 July 2008, revoking European patent No. 0910339.

The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal in a letter received on 19 September 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed.

II. In a communication dated 12 January 2009, sent by registered post, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that it would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No reply was filed to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of the notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.

2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation