Wednesday, February 17, 2021 J 10/20 - Even in the absence of a general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail, users and representatives can rely on statements on the extension of time limits which are made in a Notice in the OJ EPO.

In the present case,  the Receiving Section issued the decision under appeal on 5 December 2019. The appellant filed the notice of appeal on 17 February 2020. On the same day, the appeal fee and the fees for re-establishment of rights were paid. The statement of grounds of appeal was only filed on 2 June 2020. The Board had to assess whether the grounds were filed in time. The Board analyzed and discussed the various Notice from the European Patent Office of spring 2020 concerning the disruptions due to the COVID-19 outbreak and the Notice from the European Patent Office dated 30 March 2020 concerning the extension of periods for the payment of fees. The Board noted that those Notices only refer to '"restrictions on the movement and circulation of persons, as well as on certain services, exchanges and public life in general, which can be qualified as a general dislocation within the meaning of Rule 134(2) EPC" in the Federal Republic of Germany, the State in which the European Patent Office is located.' and notes that 'Rule 134(2) EPC, however, does not refer to a "general dislocation" as such, but to a "general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail". The European Patent Office's Notices are silent on whether there was a general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail in the Federal Republic of Germany.'. The Board concludes that 'the principle of good faith / protection of legitimate expectations applies: 'Users must not suffer a disadvantage as a result of having relied on erroneous information received from the EPO (G 2/97, point 4.1 of the Reasons). Therefore, even if there was no general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail in the Federal Republic of Germany during the relevant period, and even if it were not possible to apply Rule 134(2) EPC by analogy under the given circumstances, users could still rely on the information on the extension of time limits provided in the Notices of the European Patent Office without suffering any disadvantages.'

Friday, September 15, 2017 J 19/16 - Does a loss of rights in the international phase after regional entry have any effect?

An international application was filed in 2005 (with priority of 2004) with the wrong receiving office -the USPTO- who assigned an application number to it. The international application entered the EP regional phase in Nov 2006, and the EPO assigned a EP application number to it. About three years (!!!) later, the USPTO recognized that they were not a competent receiving office and transmitted the international application to the International Bureau, which assigned it a new international application number. The EPO assigned a new European application number to it. Somewhat later, the EPO issued a loss-of-rights communication due to non-performance of the acts for entry for the application with the new number. The IB/RO notified the (original) applicant's professional representative that the international application (with the new number) was declared to be considered withdrawn for failure to pay the prescribed fees to the IB/RO. Various renewal fees were paid in the European phase. But then, in 2014, the Receiving Section issued a communication that the Euro-PCT application that had two European application numbers assigned would be consolidated as a single application. Furthermore, the appellant was informed that the application could not be processed by the EPO as designated Office, as it was considered withdrawn in the international phase, and that the time limit for requesting review of the findings of the IB/RO under Articles 24(2) and 25(2)(a) PCT seemed to have expired. The Receiving Section on 17 August 2016 decided that the application was deemed to be withdrawn with effect from 22 January 2009. It came to the conclusion that, as the IB/RO with notification of 22 January 2009 considered the international application withdrawn by virtue of Article 14(3)(a) PCT for failure to pay the prescribed fees, its effect as a regular Euro-PCT application (Articles 11(3) PCT, 153(2) EPC) had ceased as from the date of mailing of the notification from the IB/RO, with the same consequences as the withdrawal of a European application (Article 24(1)(ii) PCT). The applicant appealed this decision. Despite a range of arguments, including good faith, the applicant was not successful.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017 J 23/14 - Pendency revisited: the 6-month period for paying the renewal fee with an additional fee

Just after the Guidelines explicitly indicated that a patent application is still pending for the purpose of filing a divisional until the expiry of the 6-month period for paying the renewal fee (even if that fee is not paid), T 1402/13 ruled that the deemed withdrawal of a patent application occured if the renewal fee was not paid at the due date - and that the patent application was thus not pending in the 6-month period if the fees were ultimately not paid (see our earlier blog). Shortly after T 1402/13, R.51(2) was amended (per 1/1/2017) for clarification by addition of a last sentence "The legal consequence laid down in Article 86, paragraph 1, shall ensue upon expiry of the six-month period." The current J-decision addresses the topic again, and refers to the EPC1973 situation, the explanatory notes of EPC2000's drafting, the distinguishing T 1402/14, R.51(2) as amended per 1/1/2017, and EPO form 2522, which was sent to the party in the present case and clearly states that a patent application is deemed withdrawn only upon expiry of the six-month grace period for paying the renewal fee with additional fee. This J-decision concludes as follows: Notwithstanding the wording of Article 86(1) EPC 2000 and Rule 51 EPC (in the version in force until 31 December 2016), for the sake of the protection of legitimate expectations of the users of the European patent system, the Board holds that a patent application is deemed to be withdrawn only upon expiry of the six-month grace period for paying the renewal fee with additional fee under Rule 51(2) EPC, in accordance with the jurisprudence that prevailed before decision T 1402/13. The current decision addresses whether the loss of rights occured due to the missing of a period -as that is a prerequisite for re-establishment-, when the period that led to the loss of rights expired, and also when the removal of the cause of non-compliance occured.

Friday, October 02, 2015 T 595/11: underpayment of appeal fee and still admissable?

A 20% reduced appeal fee was paid by the Appellant (patent owner) who filed a notice of appeal in Dutch, while the patent owner is a legal person in Switzerland. The EPO communicated the file number to the Appellant and the Respondent (opponent) and indicated that the case was referred to a specific Board without any further comments. Later, when the respondent informed the Board that the Appellant was not entitled to the fee reduction, the Appellant paid the remaining portion of the fee and requested that the EPO to accept the late payment of the full appeal fee through the application of the principle of good faith (according to G2/97: the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations). In this case the Board discusses whether the Appellant could have expected that the EPO checked the entitlement to the fee reduction early enough such that the Appellant could have remedied the Appeal, for example, by paying the full fee on time or by filing a request for re-establishment of rights. In response to arguments of the Respondent, the Board had also to consider whether the consequence of its decision would adversely affect one or more parties to the Appeal if the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to this case.