T 0825/06 (Maternal immune secretions/WESTGATE) of 22.12.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T082506.20061222
Date of decision: 22 December 2006
Case number: T 0825/06
Application number: 98936641.4
IPC class: A61P 7/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 19 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Maternal immune secretions and their use in the treatment and/or prophylaxis of conditions of the human body
Applicant name: Westgate Biological Limited
Opponent name: Numico Research B.V.
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal concerns the interlocutory decision of the opposition division of the European Patent Office posted on 6 March 2006 according to which the European patent No. 0 994 716 in amended form complies with the requirements of the EPC.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 16 May 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

III. No statement of grounds was filed by the appellant. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

IV. By communication dated 31 August 2006 and sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC.

V. The appellant did not file any observation within the time limit of two months and did not submit any further request.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal had 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