T 0591/22 (Missing statement of grounds/AMGEN) of 23.9.2022

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T059122.20220923
Date of decision: 23 September 2022
Case number: T 0591/22
Application number: 18175497.9
IPC class: A61K 31/135
A61K 9/28
A61K 9/20
A61P 5/18
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 248 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: RAPID DISSOLUTION FORMULATION OF A CINACALCET HCL
Applicant name: Amgen Inc.
Opponent name: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
HGF Limited
Gillard, Richard Edward
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd
BIOGARAN
Zentiva, k.s.
MAIWALD PATENTANWALTS- UND
RECHTSANWALTSGESELLSCHAFT MBH
Aechter, Bernd
Accord Healthcare
betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH
Hexal AG
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 126(2)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the opposition division posted on 16 December 2021.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 28 February 2022 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 18 May 2022, receipt of which was confirmed by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC, third sentence in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation