|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T003315.20150922|
|Date of decision:||22 September 2015|
|Case number:||T 0033/15|
|IPC class:||A61K 39/095
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Immunogenic composition|
|Applicant name:||GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals s.a.|
|Opponent name:||Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc./Opposition withdrawn|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division of 3 October 2014, posted on 28 October 2014, maintaining European Patent No. 1 896 063 in amended form.
II. The patent proprietor filed a notice of appeal on 6 January 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. The opponent filed a notice of appeal on 7 January 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. With letter of 6 March 2015, the opponent withdrew its opposition.
IV. By communication of 25 March 2015, received by the patent proprietor, 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.
V. With letter dated 24 April 2015 the patent proprietor acknowledged receipt of the communication of 25 March 2015 and noted the inadmissibility of the appeal due to the statement of grounds of appeal not having been filed.
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).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.