Tuesday, June 05, 2018 T 2106/14 - Workload and travel no excuse for isolated negligence on the part of an applicant

The applicant in this case failed to meet the time limit for paying a renewal fee with additional fee and requested re-establishment of rights. The Examining Division refused the request, finding that although the applicant's professional representative had exercised all due care in reminding and seeking instructions from the applicant, the person responsible on behalf of the applicant for providing those instructions had failed to exercise all due care.

In appeal, the applicant argued that because the aforementioned responsible person - an executive of the company - had been obliged temporarily to take on an additional work role that involved a great deal of travel, this led to him making an isolated mistake of not putting in place measures to ensure that important correspondence was brought to his attention.  

The Board upheld the decision of the Examining Division, on the basis that while it may be possible to excuse negligence by an employee who normally carries out work in a satisfactory manner, this does not extend to the applicant or to an executive of the applicant acting on its behalf. The same duty of rigorous care applies. 

Friday, March 30, 2018 T 0198/16 - Yea or Nay to Intention to Pay?

Is the mere intention of an appellant to pay the appeal fee, as expressed by reference to EPO Form 1010 ("Payment of fees and expenses") in the Notice of Appeal, enough to authorise the EPO to debit appellant's deposit account (holding sufficient funds), when said  Form 1010 has erroneously not been sent together with the Notice?

In this examination appeal, the Board held - deviating from T 1265/10 - that regardless of whether or not the EPO would have access to sufficient the funds of the party intending to pay, such an intention can never be considered equivalent to an order.

Referring to R 18/13, the Board further found that - different from a mistake made by an assistant - the mistake made by the representative to not explicitly instruct his assistant to pay the appeal fee and to not properly review the electronic receipt is a mistake that cannot be excused. Accordingly, the request for re-establishment of rights was refused.

As a result, the appeal was deemed not to have been filed.

Catchword:

1. The intention to authorise debiting of the deposit account does NOT already allow the EPO to act on such authorisation and carry out such intent where the EPO, under the deposit account system, already holds such money in trust (deviation in particular from T 1265/10, at point 15), (see point 3.4.3 of the quotation from the summons under point 1 of the Reasons).

2. A representative must give express and clear instructions to an assistant to the effect that the appeal fee has to be paid. It is not enough to rely on the assistant's deducing the duty to file the payment form from the notice of appeal, which includes the sentence: "The appeal fee is paid via the enclosed EPO form 1010."

Tuesday, January 16, 2018 T 2450/16 - Relying on guidance from epoline

Screenshot of epoline at its introduction in 2000

This case concerns the request of re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC in respect of the period for filing the notice of appeal against the decision of the Examining Division to refuse a European patent application.

The applicant's instructions to file an appeal were transmitted to the administrative assistant in charge of the present file. The assistant was, however, confronted with completing this task in epoline, which according to the applicant/appellant contained no clear indications concerning the initiation of an appeal procedure, apart from the payment of the appeal fee.

The assistant thus did not find any guidance for filing an appeal other than payment of the appeal fee. In paying the appeal fee, the assistent went ahead firmly but wrongly believing from epoline that this was all that was necessary. She therefore wrongly found it superfluous to consult another administrative assistant or an attorney/engineer. According to the applicant/appellant, this constituted the isolated mistake that had occurred in the present case.

As one may expect, the Board however finds that it would have been the responsibility of the representative in the circumstances to give specific and clear instructions on the filing of an appeal to the assistant.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017 J 3/17 - Buggy monitoring system

A (Lego) bug...

In the present case, a PCT patent application was filed after expiry of the 12m priority period at the Chinese PCT receiving office by an Chinese agent acting as representative of the appellant.

The appellant filed a request for restoration of the right to priority with the European Patent Office as designated Office, which was refused by decision of the Receiving Section (whereas the request was submitted to and granted by the Chinese PCT receiving office under the 'unintentional' criterion).

The appellant now appeals before the EPO, and argues that 'all due care' has been taken.

Of interest in this case was that because of a bug that had up to then never been discovered, the electronic system which was used by the Chinese agent had given a reminder of the filing date only, not the priority deadline date. Unfortunately (for the appellant, but also for the interested reader), the appeal failed already on other reasons for not satisfying 'all due care', without going into detail on the implications of 'buggy' software wreaking havoc with otherwise carefully defined procedures.

Thursday, October 05, 2017 T 2016/16 - All due care: assistant well-trained but not properly instructed/ not properly supervised by the patent attorney

The applicant timely filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee. However, the applicant missed the 4-month period to file the grounds of appeal, because the 4-month period had never been recorded in the internal electronic docketing system.  With the late-filed statement of grounds, the applicant filed a request for re-establishment of rights in respect of the time limit for filing the statement of grounds of appeal was filed and the prescribed fee was paid. A well-trained, competent and experienced assistant, who has the CIPA Patent Administrator Qualification had overlooked to record the 4-month period and the responsible patent attorney did not think to check whether the period for filing the grounds of appeal had been logged in the docketing system. The Board concluded that, even with a system of double checking in place, the representative is not discharged from his or her duty to properly instruct and supervise the assistant (cf. T 1465/07, reasons 18, last paragraph). In the case at hand, the appellants have not shown that the assistant was properly instructed or that she was properly supervised. Thus, the appellants have not discharged their burden to prove the existence of a normally satisfactory monitoring system. The omission from the docketing system of the time limit for filing the statement of grounds can therefore not be said to equate to an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory monitoring system. The request for re-establishment of rights is to be refused.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015 T 0970/12 - Yet another grant of re-establishment of right

This is another example where the Board of Appeal granted re-establishment of rights. Under very extraordinary circumstances and a combination of the Christmas and New years holidays, a sudden death of a close relative of the representative and the presence in the office of a trainee that did not know the correct procedures, the date for filing the Notice of Appeal was missed. The Board did not make much fuss and granted the re-establishment of rights.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The present appeal lies from a decision of the examining division refusing European patent application No. 09166600.8, published as EP 2111855, under Article 97(2) EPC. The application was filed as a divisional application of European patent application No. 07007272.3, published as EP 1847256 (parent application).

Friday, January 30, 2015 T 1101/14 - Don't put the blame on your secretary, if you as a representative failed yourself!

A representative  mistakenly signed a statement of grounds of appeal having most of its pages missing. As a result, the statement of grounds of appeal, did not indicate the reasons for setting aside the impugned decision or the extent to which it was to be amended - and the Board came to the preliminary conclusion that the appeal appeared to be  inadmissible. The representative tried to argue all due care, referring to the secretary's reliability (trying to put all the blame on her), but ignoring the representative's own lack of particular care when checking and signing the documents to be submitted. But: no excuses for not having checked that carefully! 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies against the decision of the examining division [...]

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 31 Janu­a­ry 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. On 11 April 2014, the appellant submitted, electro­nically, amended claims and description pages accor­ding to a main request and auxiliary requests 1-3, accom­panied by a letter stating the following:

"In the matter of the Appeal, we enclose herewith the Grounds of Appeal, to­gether with amended description pages and claims in re­lation to a Main Request and First to Third Auxiliary Re­quests. We request that the decision of the Examining Division be set aside in its entirety, and that a pa­tent be granted based on the application in the form of the Main Request. If the Appeal Board considers that the Main Request is not permissible, we respectfully request an opinion in relation to the allowability of the First to Third Auxiliary Requests. We request Oral Proceedings in the event that any of the Requests are not considered allow­able by the Appeal Board."

No fur­ther reasons were received with that submission, nor did the letter contain a list of intended enclosures.

III. With a summons to oral proceedings, the board informed the appellant of its preliminary opinion that the letter of 11 April 2014, which the board considered to constitute the statement of grounds of appeal, did not indicate the reasons for setting aside the impugned decision or the extent to which it was to be amended. The board therefore came to the preliminary conclusion that the grounds of appeal did not satisfy the require­ments of Rule 99(2) EPC so that the appeal appeared to be inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was also informed that the oral pro­ceedings would be limited to the question of admissibility.

IV. In response to the summons, received on 26 September 2014, the appellant argued that "the Grounds of Appeal which were filed were not the 'full' intended Grounds" and reques­ted re-establishment of the applicant's right in the application under Article 122 EPC in view of the fact that, in spite of all due care required by the cir­cum­stances having been taken, the Applicant was unable to observe the deadline for filing the grounds of appeal under Article 108 EPC.

V. In a communication dated 8 October 2014, the board in­formed the appellant that the request for re-establish­ment would be dealt with in the planned oral procee­dings and raised a number of questions. Since a sub­mission rela­ting to the grounds of appeal was re­ceived in time, it appeared questionable whether a time limit had been missed at all and therefore whe­ther the re­quest for re-establishment was admissible. The board also noted that the appellant had, in res­ponse to its electronic sub­mission, received an imme­di­ate acknow­ledge­ment of re­ceipt from which the omission of a sepa­rate document con­tai­ning the grounds of appeal should have been appa­rent. In view of this it seemed that the cause of non-compliance had been re­moved directly after trans­mission and that consequently the request for re-establish­ment was not filed within the two-month period pre­scribed by the EPC. Moreover, even if the request for re-estab­lish­ment had been made in good time, the presence of the receipt would appear to have a bea­ring on the assessment of whether all due care re­quired by the circumstances had been taken.

VI. The appellant provided further arguments in a letter dated 23 October 2014.

VII. The appellant's case, insofar as it is relevant to the present decision, can be summarized as follows.

a) By 1 April 2014, the appellant and the repre­sen­tative had come to an agreement as to which do­cu­ments were to be filed as and with the grounds of appeal.

b) On 11 April 2014, a bundle of documents was pre­pared for uploading to the electronic filing sys­tem including, in particular, a letter relating to the appeal procedure comprising a cover letter and a twelve-page annex containing the actual grounds of appeal.

c) The procedure normally followed by the represen­ta­tive and her secretary for an electronic filing con­sisted of five steps:

1. The representative would instruct the secretary which documents were to be filed.
2. The secretary would upload these documents to the local end of the electronic filing system.
3. The representative would click through every page of the uploaded documents and, once verified, electronically sign them.
4. The secretary would perform the "send" function of the electronic filing system and thus have the signed documents transmitted to the EPO.
5. The secretary would receive the electronic receipt of transmission and check whether the documents enclosed for transmission were properly transmitted.

d) This procedure was also followed in the present case. However, two errors occurred. The se­cretary failed in step ii) to upload the twelve-page annex containing the grounds of appeal, and the repre­sen­tative failed to notice in step iii) that this annex was missing before elec­tronically signing the documents for trans­mission.

VIII. The oral proceedings were held on 12 December 2014, at the end of which the chairman announced the decision of the board.

Reasons for the Decision

The admissibility of the request for re-establishment

1. According to Article 122(1) EPC, the remedy of re-estab­lishment is available to an applicant or pro­­pri­e­tor who was unable to observe a time-limit vis-à-vis the European patent office. Given that a statement of grounds of appeal was received in time on 11 April 2014, it might be considered that no time limit was missed at all.

1.1 The appellant argued that the letter received on 11 April 2014 did not constitute the grounds of appeal. This was obvious from the letter because it referred to grounds of appeal which were meant to be "enclose[d] herewith" but which were, in fact, not. The appellant also referred to Rule 99(2) EPC which required the statement of grounds of appeal to contain "the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned [...] and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based" and argued that the submission of 11 April 2014 clearly did not contain reasons, facts or evidence. According to the appellant, therefore, no grounds of appeal were received at all and hence the time limit under Article 108 EPC for filing the grounds of appeal was missed.

1.2 The board is not convinced by the appellant's argument. Rule 99(2) EPC provides that the statement of grounds of appeal "shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amen­ded" (emphasis by the board). When an appellant does not maintain the claims as refused but files amen­ded claims, it is a priori reasonable to assume that the appellant may not want to challenge the rea­sons of decision under appeal but rather wants it to be amen­ded. Thus the absence of reasons in the letter of 11 Ap­ril 2014 does not allow the conclusion that the letter does not constitute grounds of appeal in the sense of Article 108 EPC.

1.3 However, even though something was filed within the appropriate time limit which could be understood to be the statement of grounds of appeal, the board accepts that the submission was incomplete with respect to what was meant to be filed at the time. The appellant poin­ted out that not admitting the request for re-estab­lish­­­ment would, in the present case, be tantamount to denying the appellant its access to the boards of appeal and therefore its only remedy against the deci­sion under appeal, and argued that this would be a dis­proportional consequence of the representative's pro­cedural slip.

1.4 The board agrees with the appellant that Article 122 EPC is intended to provide a remedy for the type of error that occurred in the present case.

2. According to Rule 136(1) EPC, the request for re-es­tablishment of rights shall be filed in writing with­in two months from the removal of the cause of non-com­pli­­ance with the time limit. According to the juris­pru­dence of the boards of appeal, the cause of non-compli­ance is removed on the date on which the person respon­sible for the application is made aware of the fact that a time limit has not been observed or when the per­son concerned ought to have noticed the error if all due care had been taken (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 7th ed. 2013, III.E.3.1.1 a)).

2.1 The representative argues that she became aware of her error only when she received the board's communication dated 5 August 2014, so that the two months period started at that point.

2.2 The statement of grounds of appeal was filed electro­nically on 11 April 2014. In immediate response to this filing, the appellant received an acknowledgement of re­ceipt for the submitted documents (see also annex G, filed on 26 September 2014). The pertinent list men­tions a letter of appeal ("APPEAL-LETT-1.pdf") having merely two pages and, apart from that, only amended claims and description pages. In particular, receipt of a twelve-page document containing a statement of grounds was not acknowledged. The board is of the opin­ion that the omission would have been directly apparent to the representative had she checked the acknowledge­ment of receipt.

2.3 The representative has however argued that she [= the representative] does not - and is not required to - check the electronic acknowledgement of receipt, as this is a secretarial task. She explained that, according to the procedure for elec­tronic filing used in her office, the primary pur­pose of the acknowledgement of receipt is to confirm that the documents received at the EPO tally with the trans­mitted ones so that, in the case of a transmission problem, some or all of the documents can be sent again.

2.4 The board considers the electronic fi­ling procedure used in the representative's office and, in particular, the use made of the electronic re­ceipt according to that procedure, to be reasonable. There­fore, the board finds that the date on which the cause of compli­ance was removed was the date when the repre­sen­tative actu­ally learned from the board's summons to oral pro­cee­dings that the statement of grounds had been trans­mitted in­completely. As the board's summons was posted on 5 Au­gust 2014, the appellant's request for re-estab­lishment of rights filed on 26 September 2014 was made within the time-limit prescribed by Rule 136(1) EPC.

3. The request for re-establishment is therefore admissible.

The allowability of the request for re-establishment

4. The appellant has argued that, as required by the ju­ris­­prudence of the boards of appeal, the se­cre­tary was a suitable per­son, properly supervised in the task to be performed, and that the representative had exercised reasonable su­pervision over the secretary's work. Also the re­pre­sentative herself had a hitherto flawless record. Thus, the two errors were uncharacteristic and isolated mis­takes in an otherwise secure system. The appellant did not however give any specific reasons as to why the two errors had occurred in the present case.

5. The board has no doubts regarding the professional qua­lifi­ca­tions of the secretary and no reason to question the quality of her supervision by the representative or the reliability of the filing procedure as described. However, in view of the following, the question of whe­ther the secretary's mistake can be excused need not be decided in the present case.

6. The representative argued that, according to the de­scribed procedure, she clicks through every page of the docu­ments to be transmitted before she electronically signs them (see point VII c) above, step iii)). This corres­pon­ded to leafing through a paper submission page by page before signing it by hand.

6.1 The board agrees that this is a reasonable way of checking whether the representative is signing the right documents. More than that, the board considers that it is the representative's responsibility and ob­li­gation to make sure that what is signed is precise­ly what is meant to be signed.

6.2 The representative argued that she failed to spot the incompleteness in the documents she signed despite exer­cising all due care as required by the circum­stan­ces. The representative thus effectively asked the board, by way of re-establishment, to excuse the re­presentative's mistake of signing the wrong documents.

6.3 The representative referred to T 1095/06 in order to support her case. This decision dealt with the question of whe­ther "re-establishment may be possible even in the event of a culpable error on the part of the assis­tant, if the professional representative is able to show that he has chosen for the work a suitable person properly instructed in the tasks to be performed, and that he has exercised reasonable supervision over the work" so that the error can be considered "an isolated error in an otherwise satisfactory system" (see T 1095/06, reasons 5). The decision stated (reasons 6) that the pertinent jurisprudence could not "be extended to everything that can be described as an 'isolated mis­take'" and that, specifically, this jurisprudence could not "be relied on to ignore a failure to act by the professional representative himself, unless there are special circumstances which make the failure to act compatible with taking all due care."

6.4 The board notes that the representative's error is substantially inde­pen­dent of the specific procedure in place for elec­tro­nic filing, since it would arise in the same way if the representative worked on her own and without the support of a secretary.

6.5 The board need not decide whether the representative's mistake in question is in principle compatible with all due care. It notes however, that the signing of docu­ments is an act that requires particular care on the representative's part, especially when the signature relates to the last legal remedy against an adverse de­cision as is, in the present case, the appeal against the decision by the examining division to refuse the application. The board therefore considers that signing the wrong documents is incompatible with all due care unless special circumstances are in­voked which could justify the representative's mistake in a particular case, thus following the cited reasons of T 1095/06.

6.6 In the absence of such special circumstances the board comes to the conclusion that the representative did not take all due care required by the circumstances in the process of filing the grounds of appeal. The request for re-establishment in the time limit for filing the statement of grounds of appeal is therefore to be refused.

The admissibility of the appeal

7. According to Rule 99(2) EPC, the appellant, in the statement of grounds of appeal, shall in particular indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended (emphasis by the board).

7.1 The letter of 11 April 2014 contained no reasoning as to the substantive merits of the amended claims. The grounds of appeal do not specify whether the decision is challenged nor, if so, to what extent and why. They also fail to specify whether the amendments made to the claims are meant to overcome the reasons given in the decision or, if they do, why they are deemed sufficient in this respect.

7.2 This assessment, communicated to the appellant with the summons to oral proceedings, was not challenged by the appellant either in writing or orally.

7.3 Therefore, the board concludes that, due to the absence of any reasons, the letter filed on 11 April 2014 does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 99(2) EPC regar­ding the grounds of appeal so that the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request for re-establishment of rights is refused.

2. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

This decision has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T110114.20141212. The whole decision can be found here. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo "Signature" by Sébastien Wiertz obtained via Flickr under CC BY 2.0 license.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015 T 997/10 - US attorneys in charge

European application 92908098 by Echelon Corporation was refused on 15 October 2009 in oral proceedings, and the written reasons were dispatched to the applicant on 6 November 2009.

Under the EPC, the time limit for filing an appeal expired on 18 January 2010 (16 January being a Saturday), and the time limit for filing the grounds of appeal expired on 16 March 2010.

On 29 March 2010, the applicant filed the notice of appeal and the grounds of appeal, together with a request for establishment of rights, while paying the required fees. 

In the case at issue, the case management was essentially handled by a U.S. firm of patent attorneys, while the European representative acted on instructions from the U.S. firm rather than directly from the patentee. This included the handling of time limits. As this case shows, unfamiliarity with computing time limits under the EPC is likely to be detrimental to demonstrating all due care.

Reasons for the Decision
 
1. Re-establishment of rights is foreseen in cases where missing a time limit would lead to a loss of rights (Art. 122 EPC). The request for re-establishment must be made within two months "of the removal of the cause of non-compliance", Rule 136(1) EPC, state the grounds on which it is based, and complete the omitted act, Rule 136(2) EPC. In the present case, the applicant has complied with all of the above. According to the appellant's submissions, the error was discovered on 28 January, and on 29 March (28 March being a Sunday), a reasoned request for re-establishment including a notice and grounds of appeal was filed, and the corresponding fees were paid.

2. The request for re-establishment of rights can only be granted if "all due care required under the circumstances" has been taken. According to decision J 3/88, once the files are effectively handled by someone other than the authorised representative, as is the case here, it is this person who is required to have taken all due care, including an appropriate selection and supervision of his assistant:

"3. As regards the requirement of "all due care" within the meaning of Article 122(1) EPC, the US patent attorney must be regarded as the agent of the Appellant. Thus, in order to comply with this requirement, it has to be established that the US patent attorney has taken the due care required of an applicant for or proprietor of a European patent by Article 122(1) EPC (cf. J 05/80; OJ EPO 1981, 343). This means among other things that, in case of culpable errors committed by the US patent attorney's assistants, the Appellant may only benefit from the provisions of Article 122 EPC if he is able to prove that these assistants were carefully selected and properly instructed in the tasks to be performed, and that a reasonable supervision of their activity has been exercised (cf. J 05/80, above)."

3. In the further submission of 8 November 2010, the Board was told that both of Mr Nicholson's assistants were certified paralegals in California, and have worked at the firm of Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor and Zafman LLP for several years. The Board has not been told who these assistants actually were, or how and whether they have been continuously supervised.

4. An important issue for the Appellant's case of re-establishment of rights is the "fail-safe" system as described by Mr Nicholson. In effect, these are the docketing programme that gives out a soft deadline, and the assistant him or herself who writes the deadline on the file, alerts the attorney to the deadline and partakes in weekly docket meetings in which upcoming cases are discussed. In the case at issue, the assistant failed to perform his or her duties due to an illness in the week of 6 January 2010. The date of 6 January 2010 had found its way to the docketing programme as an alleged "soft" deadline and was ignored.

5. When looking at the facts of the case, the Board first of all has difficulties in identifying a proper fail-safe system that requires effective cross-checks. Decision J 9/86 dealt with a similar case where there was an inconsistency between data in the computer file and data in the manual entries. The Board in this case held as follows (point 9, paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Reasons):

"The Statement of Grounds sets out in detail the system used in the representative's office for recording a time limit in a manual diary, a computer file, and in the representative's personal reminder system. However, in spite of the existence of such a seemingly comprehensive entry and checking system, it appears that the failure to observe the time limit was caused primarily by a failure to enter the time limit in the computer file. The lack of data in the computer file for this case was then later accepted as correct, in preference to the manual diary entry of the time limit, which was therefore deleted.

Thus the system in the representative's office which was supposed to ensure that payments to the EPO were made in due time did not include any effective cross-check. A simple failure by one person to make an entry of the time limit into the computer file resulted in non-payment of the fees and failure to file translations of the claims within the time limit specified.

The question whether a particular system used in a particular office to ensure that acts such as the payment of fees are completed in due time satisfies the requirements of "all due care" in Article 122 EPC must depend upon the individual circumstances of each case. However, in a large firm where a large number of dates have to be monitored at any given time, it is normally to be expected that at least one effective cross-check is built into the system. For a cross-check to be effective, it is clearly essential that if the cross-check shows in a particular case an inconsistency between the data being checked and the data which is being used to cross-check, an investigation must then be carried out to ascertain which data is correct.

In the present case, although there was inconsistency between the data in the computer file and the data in the manual entry diary, it appears that the reason for the inconsistency was not investigated. Furthermore, it has not been established that the person who carried out the cross-check was under a duty to investigate an inconsistency in such circumstances. Therefore, on the information at present before the Board, the system in use in the representative's office could be open to criticism."

6. The Board regards it of particular importance in the case at issue that nowhere in Mr Nicholson's statement can the actual time limit for filing an appeal be found. As the decision under appeal dates from 6 November 2009, the time limit for filing the notice of appeal would have been 18 January taking into account the ten day rule of postal delivery (Rule 126(2) EPC) and the fact that 16 January was a Saturday (Rule 134(1) EPC). From Mr Nicholson's statement (and, curiously enough, also from Mr. Wombwell's letter of 29 March 2010 requesting re-establishment of rights), it would seem that 6 January 2010 was thought to be the time limit for filing an appeal, and that Mr Nicholson was (wrongly) told by an assistant "that 16 January 2010 or 6 February 2010 was the deadline for filing the appeal". The vagueness of this statement would already have been a good reason for further inquiries. Mr. Nicholson further mentions that an internal "soft" deadline was assumed to have been set for a date two weeks before the actual "hard" deadline". But neither is 6 January two weeks prior to 16 January, nor is 16 January two weeks prior to 6 February. In respect of the latter two dates, Mr. Nicholson states that "16 January 2010 was approximately two weeks prior to 6 February, [and] we assumed that 16 January was a "soft" deadline and that 6 February was the "hard" deadline". - Again, this statement is rather vague. 6 February was actually three weeks after 16 January. Further, it was a Saturday, and according to Rule 134(1) EPC, no "hard" deadlines fall on days when the Office is closed.

7. According to Mr Nicholson, 6 January 2010 was the due date for filing the notice of appeal. This, first of all, was an incorrect calculation. Next, and admitted by Mr. Nicholson, a mistake was made in noting the date to indicate 16 January as the "hard" deadline. In such case, the computer should presumably have given an alert two weeks prior to this date, and it is not clear from the facts why this was not the case. If, on the other hand, 6 January was the alert for a soft deadline, it is not entirely clear why this was ignored. Further, had Mr. Nicholson taken a look at the case on the alleged "soft" deadline of 16 January, he could still have managed to instruct Mr. Wombwell to file a notice of appeal on 18 January, which was the actual time limit. Finally, no explanation has been given how the date of 6 February 2010 was calculated. The note for this date presumably should have concerned the "grounds of appeal", and not the notice of appeal, giving further credence to the impression that the persons in charge of the file were unfamiliar with procedures and time limits before the EPO, since the actual "hard" deadline for filing the grounds of appeal would have been 16 March, one month and ten days later than the deadline noted. In sum, on the evidence presented, the Board is not convinced that "all due care" was given to calculating and meeting the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

This decision has European Case Law Identifier ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T099710.20101207. The whole decision can be found here. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo from freedigitalphotos.net.