T 1745/16 (Anti-Angiogenesis/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) of 13.1.2017

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T174516.20170113
Date of decision: 13 January 2017
Case number: T 1745/16
Application number: 11706712.4
IPC class: C07K 16/22
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 219.824K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Anti-angiogenesis therapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer
Applicant name: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 126(2)
European Patent Convention R 131
Keywords: "Missing statement of grounds"
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the examining division of 26 November 2015 refusing the European patent application No. 11 706 712.4. The decision was posted on 5 February 2016 and duly received by the applicant (hereinafter "the appellant").

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 14 March 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. The Registry of the board informed the appellant by a communication of 27 July 2016, which it duly received, 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 Rules 126(2) and 131 EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal 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