T 1369/09 () of 28.10.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T136909.20091028
Date of decision: 28 October 2009
Case number: T 1369/09
Application number: 03761278.5
IPC class: A61K 31/135
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Topical administration of basic antifungal compositions to treat fungal infections of the nails
Applicant name: Dermatrends, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the examining division posted on 14 January 2009, refusing European patent application No. 03 761 278.5.

The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal received on 17 March 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.

II. In a communication dated 31 July 2009, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No reply was filed to said communication, nor a request for re-establishment of rights.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.

2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation