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 1638/09 (Angiogenic transgenes/CALIFORNIA) of 4.2.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T163809.20100204
Date of decision: 04 February 2010
Case number: T 1638/09
Application number: 98918904.8
IPC class: C12N 15/12
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.154K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Techniques and compositions for treating heart failure and ventricular remodeling by in vivo delivery of angiogenic transgenes
Applicant name: The Regents of the University of California et al
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicants (appellants) filed a notice of appeal dated 16 April 2009 against the decision of the examining division of 16 February 2009, whereby the European patent application No. 98 918 904.8 (published as the international application WO 98/50079) with the title "Techniques and compositions for treating heart failure and ventricular remodeling by in vivo delivery of angiogenic transgenes", was refused under Article 97(2) EPC on the basis of the request (claims 1 to 27) filed with the letter of 19 November 1999. The appeal fee was paid on 17 April 2009. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 14 September 2009 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellants were 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, and Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellants were invited to file observations within two months.

III. The appellants 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 any statement that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC). Since the appeal is inadmissible, none of the requests in the notice of appeal, including the request for oral proceedings, can be considered.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation