| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T012900.20000825 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 25 August 2000 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0129/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 90911467.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12P 21/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Tumour Necrosis Factor Binding Ligands | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Peptech Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | BASF Aktiengesellschaft | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Re-establishment of rights (request withdrawn) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 25 November 1999 and concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 0 486 526 in amended form.
The Appellant (Opponent) filed a Notice of Appeal by letter received on 28 January 2000 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. The Statement of Grounds was filed on 29 May 2000.
II. By a communication dated 2 June 2000, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that the Statement of Grounds has not been filed in due time and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. On 5 June 2000 the Appellant filed a request for re-establishment of rights and paid the fee on the same date.
IV. By letter dated 25 August 2000 the Appellant withdrew his request for re-establishment of rights.
Reasons for the Decision
As the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has not been filed in due time and the request for re-establishment of rights has been withdrawn, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
