4.1. Application of Rule 142 EPC by the EPO of its own motion

The EPO must apply the provisions of R. 142 EPC (R. 90 EPC 1973) of its own motion (J ../87=J 902/87, OJ 1988, 323; J 23/88; T 315/87 of 14 February 1989 date: 1989-02-14; J 49/92; T 854/12; J 7/16; T 54/17). Entering an interruption in the register is not constitutive and is merely declaratory in effect (T 854/12). The consequence of an interruption in the proceedings is that the time limits in force as regards the applicant or patentee at the date of interruption of the proceedings, shall begin again as from the day on which the proceedings were resumed (see R. 142(4) EPC). However, the time limit for making the request for examination and the time limit for paying renewal fees are only suspended (see in this chapter III.D.4.8. "Consequences of interruption of proceedings (R. 142(4) EPC)").

In T 54/17 the board took the view that, in cases where an appeal was pending, the Legal Division did not have exclusive competence to decide on an interruption. It thereby endorsed the view taken in T 854/12 that a board could decide on this for itself in any proceedings before it because, otherwise, a department outside the boards of appeal could deprive it of its power over those proceedings without it being able to do anything about it, especially if interrupting them retrospectively.

In T 1389/18 the board held that the Legal Division generally had the power to establish that proceedings had been interrupted under R. 142(1)(b) EPC with retrospective effect too.