T 1882/09 (Method of coating delivery systems/ALZA) of 26.4.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T188209.20100426
Date of decision: 26 April 2010
Case number: T 1882/09
Application number: 03742313.4
IPC class: A61M 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.531K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method of coating transdermal drug delivery devices having coated microprotrusions
Applicant name: ALZA Corporation
Opponent name: 3M Innovative Properties Company
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 28 July 2009, revoking European patent No. 1517722.

The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal in a letter received on 22 September 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed.

II. In a communication dated 25 January 2010, 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 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