T 1283/13 () of 9.10.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T128313.20131009
Date of decision: 09 October 2013
Case number: T 1283/13
Application number: 05787106.3
IPC class: C12N 5/08
C12N 5/06
A61K 35/12
A61K 35/28
A61P 9/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 207.798K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: MULTIPOTENTIAL EXPANDED MESENCHYMAL PRECURSOR CELL PROGENY (MEMP) AND USES THEREOF
Applicant name: Mesoblast, 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
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies against the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office of 4 December 2012 whereby the European Patent application No. 05787106.3 (published as EP-A-1807510) entitled "Multipotential expanded mesenchymal precursor cell progeny (MEMP) and uses thereof" was refused.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 1 February 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

III. By communication of 11 June 2013, 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

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