European Patent Office

T 0231/23 of 08.12.2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T023123.20231208
Date of decision
8 December 2023
Case number
T 0231/23
Petition for review of
-
Application number
14807425.5
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
No distribution (D)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
Abstract on EPC2000 R 136(1)
Application title
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FORMING A FORMWORK FOR A CONCRETE SLAB
Applicant name
Parodi, Fabio
Opponent name
-
Board
3.2.03
Headnote
-
Keywords
Re-establishment of rights - time limit for filing request for re-establishment
Re-establishment of rights - two months of the removal of the cause of non-compliance (no)
Catchword
1.) The removal of the cause of non-compliance with a time limit under Rule 136(1) EPC occurs, as a rule, on the date on which the person responsible for the application vis-à-vis the EPO becomes aware of the fact that the time limit has not been observed, for example by receipt of a loss of rights communication under Rule 112(1) EPC. If a professional representative is appointed, the representative is the person responsible for the application vis-a-vis the EPO (Reasons 3 and 4).
2.) Regarding time limits for the payment of fees, an appointed professional representative remains the person responsible for the application vis-a-vis the EPO, and thus the person whose knowledge matters in assessing when the cause of non-compliance was removed, irrespective of whether a third party other than the representative is responsible for the payment of fees. Hence, also when a time limit for the payment of fees was missed, removal of the cause of non-compliance in principle occurs on the date on which an appointed professional representative receives the corresponding loss of rights communication (Reasons 5). The removal of the cause of non-compliance does not require any additional knowledge on the part of the professional representative about possible reasons for missing the time limit, such as whether the non-payment of renewal fees had been intentional or not (Reasons 7).
Citing cases
T 1882/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.