2. Filing and admissibility requirements
  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. IV. Proceedings before the departments of first instance
  6. C. Opposition procedure
  7. 2. Filing and admissibility requirements
  8. 2.2. Formal requirements for opposition and filing in due time
  9. 2.2.2 Opposition period
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.2. Formal requirements for opposition and filing in due time

Overview

2.2.2 Opposition period

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

In T 438/87 the question addressed was whether a delay in publication of the European patent specification could affect the calculation of the nine-month period for filing an opposition. The board concluded that, since the mention of the grant of the patent in suit had been brought to the public's attention in the normal way, it was from this date that the opposition period had begun, irrespective of what problems may have affected publication of the patent specification and what consequences such untoward event might have for certain third parties owing to their geographical location.

According to T 1644/10, the opposition period is triggered solely by the grant of a European patent and publication of the mention of its grant in the European Patent Bulletin. The mention in the European Patent Bulletin that a correction of the patent specification has been issued does not trigger either a first or any "further" opposition period, even if the corrected specification confers a broader scope of protection than that conferred by the one originally published.

In T 2061/12, the board noted that the EPO distinguished between fax parts received before and after midnight, according them different filing dates (T 683/06, T 2133/10; decision of the President dated 12 July 2007, OJ SE 3/2007, 7). In this case, only the last page and possibly part of the penultimate one had arrived after midnight, while Form 2300 signed by the patent agent, the payment form and at least the first two pages of the notice of opposition – which at a minimum substantiated a novelty objection – had all certainly reached the EPO before midnight. The opposition had therefore been filed in due time under Art. 99(1) EPC; it also complied with R. 76(1) and (2) EPC. It was therefore admissible (R. 77(1) and (2) EPC).

New decisions
T 858/18

If a facsimile transmission of a document within the meaning of Rule 50(3) EPC begins on an earlier date and extends beyond midnight to a later date, the entire document is accorded the later date as single date of receipt. There is no legal basis for according the earlier date as date of receipt to the part of the document arriving at the EPO before midnight (see in particular point 6 and for the term "document" point 4 and for the "date of receipt" point 5 of the reasons).

Deviating from decisions T 2061/12 and T 2317/13 (see points 7.3 and 7.4 of the reasons).

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