| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T095503.20040309 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 March 2004 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0955/03 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 94907826.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12Q 1/68 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Methods and diagnostic kits utilizing mammalian stress promoters to determine toxicity of a compound | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, et al | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | AstraZeneca AB AstraZeneca UK Limited Amersham Pharmacia Biotech (UK) Ltd Digital Gene Technologies, Inc. SmithKline Beecham plc Hyseq Inc. MONSANTO COMPANY |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statements of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals contest the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 16 May 2003 concerning maintenance of European Patent No. 0 680 517 in amended form.
The appellant I (patentee) filed a notice of appeal on 25. July 2003 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
The appellant II (opponent 1) filed a notice of appeal on 16 July 2003 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
The appellant III (opponent 2) filed a notice of appeal on 16 July 2003 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
By letter dated 26 September 2003 the appellant I (patentee) withdrew the appeal.
No statements of grounds were filed by appellants II and III. Their notices of appeal contain nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By communications dated 28 October 2003 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the Board informed the appellants II and III that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeals could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.
The appellants were invited to file observations within two months.
Attention was also drawn to Article 122 EPC.
III. In response to an inquiry by the registry of the Board, the representative of appellants II and III confirmed by fax dated 5 March 2004 that the communications of 28 October 2003 had been received, that no Statement of Grounds or requests under Article 122 EPC had been filed by these appellants.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statements setting out the grounds of appeal have been filed, the appeals of appellants II and III have to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeals of appellants II and III are rejected as inadmissible.
