| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T063902.20050628 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 June 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0639/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 91913039.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 7/01 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Methods for producing functional, single-chain Fv antibody fragments on the surface of bacteriophage particles | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Cambridge Antibody Technology Limited, et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Dyax Corp. BioInvent Therapeutic AB Morphosys Gesellschaft für Proteinoptimierung mbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The patentee (respondent), opponent 01 (appellant), opponent 02 and opponent 04 each filed an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 15 April 2002, by which decision the European patent No. 0 589 877 (European application No. 91 913 039.3) was maintained in amended form pursuant to Articles 102(3) and 106(3) EPC. Opponent 03 had withdrawn its opposition during the proceedings before the opposition division.
II. In a letter of 30 September 2003, opponent 04 withdrew from the appeal proceedings. In a further letter dated 17 October 2003, the opponent indicated that it withdrew also its opposition.
III. On 2 June 2005, opponent 02 withdrew its appeal and opposition.
IV. The patentee withdrew its appeal on 6 June 2005.
V. The present appellant (opponent 01) had filed a notice of appeal on 17 June 2002 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
VI. By a communication dated 21 October 2002 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC. The appellant did not reply to said communication, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, and as the notice of appeal does not contain any statements that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the sole pending appeal of opponent 01 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 of opponent 01 is rejected as inadmissible.
