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 1823/10 () of 28.2.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T182310.20110228
Date of decision: 28 February 2011
Case number: T 1823/10
Application number: 99926984.8
IPC class: C12N 15/45
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.806K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Newcastle disease virus infectious clones, vaccines and diagnostic assays
Applicant name: Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek
Opponent name: Intervet International BV
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 28 May 2010 concerning the European patent No. 1 088 077 entitled "Newcastle disease virus infectious clones, vaccines and diagnostic assays". The Opposition Division decided that the patent could be maintained in amended form on the basis of a set of claims according to the Auxiliary Request I and an amended description which were filed at the oral proceedings held on 19 November 2009.

II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 28 July 2010 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. However, no statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit specified in Article 108 EPC.

III. By a communication dated 11 November 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. Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC. The appellant 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 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). Since the appeal is inadmissible, the appellant's request to set aside the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division to the extent as the decision was adverse, cannot be considered.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation