T 2718/16 (Sample preparation/GENEOHM) of 13.6.2017

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T271816.20170613
Date of decision: 13 June 2017
Case number: T 2718/16
Application number: 03767351.4
IPC class: C12Q 1/68
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 225.058K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Methods to verify the efficiency of sample preparation and nucleic acid amplification and/or detection
Applicant name: Geneohm Sciences Canada, Inc.
Opponent name: Strawman Limited
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds of appeal
Appeal inadmissible (yes)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies against a decision of an opposition division of the European Patent Office dated 12 October 2016 whereby an opposition to the grant of European patent No. 1 579 002 (application No. 03 767 351.4) with the title "Methods to verify the efficiency of sample preparation and nucleic acid amplification and/or detection" was rejected under Article 101(2) EPC.

II. The opponent (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 20 December 2016 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 a communication dated 27 March 2017 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, and Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

IV. No reply was received. On l3 June 2017, the Board's registrar telephoned the appellant's representative who then confirmed that the appellant did not wish to proceed with the appeal and that the appeal procedure could be terminated.

Reasons for the Decision

As 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, and as the notice of appeal contains any statements that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC, 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