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 0370/12 (Infectious cDNA/INSTITUT PASTEUR) of 21.1.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T037012.20130121
Date of decision: 21 January 2013
Case number: T 0370/12
Application number: 02291551.6
IPC class: C07K 14/12
C12N 15/45
C12N 15/63
A61K 39/165
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 91.033K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Infectious cDNA of an approved vaccine strain of measles virus - Use for immunogenic compositions
Applicant name: Institut Pasteur
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Opponent name: Medizinische Universitätsklinik Tübingen
Board: 3.3.04
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 is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 15 December 2011 concerning the rejection of the opposition filed against European Patent No. 1 375 512 pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.

II. The opponent (hereinafter "appellant") filed a notice of appeal on 16 February 2012 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

III. No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed by the appellant. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

IV. By communication dated 28 June 2012, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

V. The appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC, third sentence, in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation