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 1366/12 (Guanylate cyclase receptor agonists/SYNERGY) of 4.6.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T136612.20130604
Date of decision: 04 June 2013
Case number: T 1366/12
Application number: 02721604.3
IPC class: C07K 7/00
C07K 7/64
A61K 38/04
A61K 38/12
A61P 35/00
A61P 29/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 91.160K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Guanylate cyclase receptor agonists for the treatment of tissue inflammation and carcinogenesis
Applicant name: Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Opponent name: Hill, Christopher Michael
CombiMab, Inc.
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal (no) - 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 29 March 2012 according to which the European patent No. 1 379 224 in amended form complies with the requirements of the EPC.

II. The opponent I (hereinafter "appellant") filed a notice of appeal on 8 June 2012 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

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

IV. By a communication dated 18 December 2012, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal 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 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