| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T089310.20101122 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 November 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0893/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04708393.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 9/70 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Transdermal Granisetron | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Strakan International Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Harrison Goddard Foote BOETERS & LIECK |
||||||||
| 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 4 March 2010, rejecting the opposition.
The appellant (opponent II) filed a notice of appeal in a letter received on 26 April 2010 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed.
II. In a communication dated 18 August 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 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. 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 modification 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.
