T 1716/11 () of 10.11.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T171611.20111110
Date of decision: 10 November 2011
Case number: T 1716/11
Application number: 05791957.3
IPC class: A61K 31/4375
A61P 3/06
A61P 9/00
A61P 9/10
A61K 31/4725
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.462K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Methods and compositions for the treatment of hyperlipidemia
Applicant name: Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese
Academy of Medical Sciences
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds of appeal
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Examining Division posted on 21 January 2011 revoking European patent application No. 05791957.3.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 30 January 2011 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 16 August 2011, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

1. No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation