T 1149/24 (Autoimmune diseases/AMGEN) 22-09-2025
Download and more information:
Compositions and methods of treating inflammatory and autoimmune diseases
STRAWMAN LIMITED
Sanofi
König Szynka Tilmann von Renesse
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
I. The patent proprietor (appellant I) and opponent 4 (appellant II) both filed notices of appeal against the opposition division's interlocutory decision that the patent amended according to auxiliary request 21 met the requirements of the EPC.
II. Appellant II filed its notice of appeal on 29 August 2024 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In said notice of appeal, it made a request for oral proceedings.
III. By communication of 13 November 2024, which was delivered via the EPO Mailbox, the Registry of the Board informed appellant II 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 EPC, third sentence 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.
V. The board issued a summons to oral proceedings dated 14 August 2025.
VI. Appellant I withdrew its appeal with a letter dated 29 August 2025.
VII. Appellant II withdrew its request for oral proceedings with a letter dated 18 September 2025.
VIII. The board cancelled the oral proceedings.
1. No written statement of grounds of appeal was filed by Appellant II within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, 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).
2. Appellant I withdrew its appeal with a letter dated 29 August 2025, after the board issued a summons to oral proceedings on 14 August 2025. Its appeal fee is therefore to be refunded at 50% (Rule 103(3)(a) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal of appellant II (opponent 4) is rejected as inadmissible.
The appeal fee of appellant I (patent proprietor) is to be refunded at 50%.