T 0965/00 (Farnesyl Protein Transferase/TEXAS SYSTEM) of 31.5.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T096500.20010531
Date of decision: 31 May 2001
Case number: T 0965/00
Application number: 91907853.5
IPC class: G07K 7/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 23 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Methods and compositions for the indentification, characterization and inhibition of farnesyl protein transferase
Opponent name: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: -


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office posted on 13 July 2000, by which European patent No. 0 528 820 was maintained in amended form.

The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal by telex and facsimile both received on 22 September 2000 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 26 March 2001, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer has been given to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation