In J 13/11 the appellant requested re-establishment in respect of the time limit for paying the third renewal fee on the last day for doing so and after EPO office hours. The board held that there was no time for the EPO to warn the appellant about the non-payment of the third renewal-fee and surcharge even if the EPO had been in a position to spot this deficiency. The board distinguished the case in hand from T 14/89 (OJ 1990, 432) (on which see G 2/97) where the EPO had had ample time, about six weeks before the expiry of the time limit for requesting re-establishment, in which to inform the proprietor of the deficiencies of his request. See T 1633/18 and T 703/19 for examples of cases in which the board held that the relevant party would still have had time to correct the deficiency at issue if it had been informed of it.
See also T 1764/08 (concerning the electronic filing of the notice of appeal on the last day of the time limit) and the cases referred to therein, in this chapter III.A.4.2.3. See also in this chapter III.A.4.2.2 (missing or insufficient fee payments).