According to R. 152(8) EPC, a representative is deemed to be authorised until the termination of his authorisation has been communicated to the EPO.
In T 578/14 the board stated that if, or for as long as, the termination of an authorisation was not communicated to the EPO, the authorisation remained effective vis-à-vis the EPO even though, the contract between the party and its representative had been dissolved, or the party had – vis-à-vis the representative – revoked the authorisation that it had given him. In the case of a change of representative involving professional representatives, the provisions of Art. 1(2) of the decision of the President of the EPO (OJ SE 3/2007, 128, L.1.) also apply, i.e. usually either the termination of the authorisation of the previous representative is communicated to the EPO or the new representative files an individual authorisation (original and one copy) or a reference to a general authorisation already on file. In view of R. 152(8) EPC and the decision of the President, the responsibility for informing the EPO about the termination of the contract between a party and its representative before the EPO lies with the represented party, irrespective of whether or not it has its residence in an EPC contracting state, or with its representative. It is only when the EPO receives such information that it might have to determine on the basis of the documents filed whether a contract between a party to the proceedings before the EPO and its representative has indeed been terminated. The board added that informing the EPO about an intention to change the representative could not be equated with a clear withdrawal of an authorisation under R. 152(7) EPC or with the communication of the termination of the authorisation as mentioned in R. 152(8) EPC. Both cases concern a procedural declaration which in the interest of legal certainty has to be unambiguous.