4. Admissibility of requests for re-establishment of rights
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. III. Rules common to all proceedings before the EPO
  6. E. Re-establishment of rights
  7. 4. Admissibility of requests for re-establishment of rights
  8. 4.2. Inability to observe a time limit
  9. 4.2.2 Financial difficulties
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

4.2. Inability to observe a time limit

Overview

4.2.2 Financial difficulties

You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here

In J 22/88 (OJ 1990, 244) the Legal Board held that financial difficulties experienced through no fault of one's own and leading to failure to observe time limits for the payment of fees could constitute grounds for granting re-establishment of rights. A prerequisite for granting the request was that the applicant should have tried with all due care to obtain financial support. The board also made it clear that for "all due care" to be proven, it had, of course, to be clear that the financial difficulties were genuine and were due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the applicant (see also J 31/89, T 822/93). In J 9/89 the Legal Board noted that there was no evidence before the board of any effort having been made by or on behalf of the appellant to find financial support during the critical period.

In J 11/98 the applicant requested re-establishment in respect of the time limit for paying the renewal fee, on the grounds that at the relevant times the appellant had been seeking protection under Chapter 11 of US bankruptcy law. The Legal Board confirmed the examining division's decision refusing the request. The applicant had not shown that at the relevant time it had been so lacking in funds as to be absolutely unable to make the payment (see also J 26/95, OJ 1999, 668, in chapter III.D.3.6. "Interruption of proceedings because of insolvency").

In J 6/14 the Legal Board held that it was clear from the events described and from all the evidence adduced that the appellant, an individual applicant who had been faced with serious health problems, had been in a very difficult financial situation for several years. He had proven the genuine existence of his difficulties to justify his failure to pay the renewal fee plus additional fee. The board consequently found that he had satisfied the requirements of Art. 122 EPC.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility