Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 2229/09 () of 24.2.2010

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T222909.20100224
Date of decision: 24 February 2010
Case number: T 2229/09
Application number: 03762661.1
IPC class: A61K 47/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 14.998K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Liquid formulations with high concentration of human growth hormone (HGH) comprising phenol
Applicant name: SANDOZ AG, et al
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 30 April 2009, refusing European patent application No. 03762661.1.

The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal received on 2 July 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 26 November 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.

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