T 0293/10 (NANBV/NOVARTIS) of 1.12.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T029310.20101201
Date of decision: 01 December 2010
Case number: T 0293/10
Application number: 90302866.0
IPC class: C12N 15/51
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.623K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: NANBV diagnostics and vaccines
Applicant name: Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
Opponent name: BIOMERIEUX SA
Mikrogen Molekularbiologische Entwicklungs-GmbH
Innogenetics N.V.
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The patent proprietor (appellant) filed on 9 February 2010 a notice of appeal against the decision of the opposition division dated 9 December 2009, whereby the European patent No. 0 388 232 (European application No. 90 302 866.0) entitled "NANBV diagnostics and vaccines" was revoked under Article 123(2) EPC. The appeal fee was paid on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 25 May 2010 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was 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 appellant was invited to file observations within two months. The appellant did not reply to said communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.

Reasons for the Decision

1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, and as the notice of appeal does not contain any statements 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).

2. Since the appeal is inadmissible, none of the requests in the notice of appeal, including the request for oral proceedings, can be considered.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation