In T 382/16 the patent proprietor submitted with its rejoinder comparative tests (D 11). However, the rejoinder had not been signed because the last page of the rejoinder bearing the signature of the representative had not been transmitted. The whole rejoinder including the missing page 5 with the signature of the representative was submitted later. The board stated that in analogy to the provisions of R. 50(3) EPC, it was considered that the tests shall retain their original date of receipt and therefore were deemed to have been filed within four months of notification of the grounds of appeal.
In T 2307/15 the respondent argued that the appeal was inadmissible since the statement setting out the grounds of appeal sent by facsimile was incomplete. The board found that although some paragraphs were missing in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the document still allowed the reader to understand the reasons according to which the appellant requested the impugned decision to be set aside and the facts and evidence on which the appeal was based. The statement setting out the grounds of appeal received was therefore to be seen as being complete. Thus, the appeal was admissible. However see also T 858/18 regarding incomplete facsimile transmission and the observance of the time limit Art. 99(1) EPC).