T 1739/12 () of 23.1.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T173912.20130123
Date of decision: 23 January 2013
Case number: T 1739/12
Application number: 10003357.0
IPC class: A61P 9/00
A61P 9/10
A61K 31/202
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 88.141K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Lipoxin analogs as novel inhibitors of angiogenesis
Applicant name: The Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
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

The appellant (applicant) contests the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office posted 22 February 2012 refusing European patent application

No. 10 003 357.0 pursuant to Article 97(2) EPC.

The notice of appeal was received on 19 April 2012 and the appeal fee was paid on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal has been filed.

By a communication dated 9 August 2012 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, as a consequence, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was also given a time limit of two months for filing observations.

No answer has been given to this communication.

Reasons for the Decision

According to Article 108 EPC, a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision.

If the appeal does not comply with Article 108 EPC, the appeal must be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC). In the present case, no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as such.

Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation