T 0439/06 (Electronic trading system/REUTERS) of 31.01.2007
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T043906.20070131
- Date of decision
- 31 January 2007
- Case number
- T 0439/06
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 96942546.1
- IPC class
- G06F 17/60
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Electronic trading system including an auto-arbitrage feature or name switching feature
- Applicant name
- REUTERS LIMITED
- Opponent name
- HSBC Bank plc et al.
- Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
1. Article 122(1) EPC stipulates that a patent proprietor can only have his rights reestablished if he has observed all due care required by the circumstances. Thus what all due care calls for depends on the specific circumstances of the case. In this respect, not only the individual circumstances of the person concerned have to be taken into consideration, but also the kind of time limit that needs to be observed and the legal consequences of missing it.
2. The representative bears the final responsibility. As the consequences of missing the time limit for filing the statement of grounds of appeal are severe, all due care under these circumstances requires the representative to verify the time limit calculated by his records department when he receives the file for dealing with it. He cannot simply rely on having delegated this task once and for all to his records department (see points 8 and 10 of the Reasons).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 122 1973European Patent Convention R 65(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 78(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 83(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 83(4) 1973
- Keywords
- Re-establishment of rights (no)
All due care required by the representative (no)
Application of principle of proportionality (no) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The application for re-establishment of rights is refused.
2. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.