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 0811/11 (Differentiated progenitor cells/ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY) of 11.7.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T081111.20110711
Date of decision: 11 July 2011
Case number: T 0811/11
Application number: 00973497.1
IPC class: C12N 15/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.265K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Methods of producing differentiated progenitor cells and lineage-defective embryonic stem cells
Applicant name: Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.
Opponent name: -
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 applicant (appellant) on 10 December 2010 filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the examining division dated 11 October 2010, whereby the European patent application No. 00 973 497.1 with the title "Method of producing differentiated progenitor cells and lineage-defective embryonic stem cells" was refused pursuant to Article 97(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 19 April 2011 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no written 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.

III. The appellant did not reply to the 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 request in the notice of appeal that the decision of the examining division be cancelled in its entirety cannot be considered.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation