http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j060017eu1.html
Content reproduced from the Website of the European Patent Office as permitted by their terms of use.

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:J001706.20070130
Date of decision: 30 January 2007
Case number: J 0017/06
Application number: 05008230.4
IPC class:
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.111K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Pharmaceutical preparation and method for treatment and prevention of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue
Applicant name: Gottfriesmottagningen AB
Opponent name:
Board: 3.1.01
Headnote:
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds
Catchwords:

Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The Appellant contests the decision of the Receiving Section of the European Patent Office dated 8 March 2006 rejecting the request for the re-establishment of rights.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 10 May 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 9 October 2006 and sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months, if any.

III. The Appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, 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.