| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T188209.20100426 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 26 April 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1882/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 03742313.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61M 37/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Method of coating transdermal drug delivery devices having coated microprotrusions | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ALZA Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | 3M Innovative Properties Company | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the opposition division dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 28 July 2009, revoking European patent No. 1517722.
The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal in a letter received on 22 September 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed.
II. In a communication dated 25 January 2010, sent by registered post, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that it would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No reply was filed to said communication.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of the notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.
2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
