T 2276/08 () of 16.6.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T227608.20090616
Date of decision: 16 June 2009
Case number: T 2276/08
Application number: 01967509.9
IPC class: A61K 33/16
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.179K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Halogen compounds for use in medicine
Applicant name: Chapman, Robert Edward, et al
Opponent name: -
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 examining division posted on 27 June 2008, refusing European patent application No. 01967509.9.

The appellants (applicants) filed a notice of appeal received on 5 September 2008 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.

II. In a communication dated 21 January 2009, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the board informed the appellants that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellants were 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 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 appellants 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