3. Notification to representatives

Notifications must be addressed to the appointed representative (R. 130(1) EPC, previously R. 81(1) EPC 1973). If several representatives have been appointed for a single party, it is sufficient to notify any one of them (R. 130(2) EPC). If several parties have a common representative, it is sufficient to notify the common representative (R. 130(3) EPC).

In T 812/04 the board pointed out that R. 101(6) EPC 1973 (R. 152(8) EPC), in conjunction with R. 81(1) EPC 1973, clearly indicated that, until the termination of an authorisation had been communicated to the EPO, the latter was obliged to notify communications, decisions or other documents to the duly appointed representative and that these notifications alone would have valid effects. The fact that the appellant had filed the notice of appeal himself imposed no obligation on the Registry of the Boards of Appeal to inquire about the legal status of relations between the applicant (client) and the duly appointed representative or to send the documents and communications subsequently directly to the client direct.

With regard to the question to whom notifications under R. 130(1) EPC must be addressed, the legal situation at the date of issue of the communication is relevant (T 7/17). A notification had to be made on the basis of the facts on file at the time of posting (J 22/94). In J 19/92 the Legal Board held that notifications to an applicant's representative were duly made if they were despatched before the representative relinquished his brief. The notification to the applicant did not therefore have to be repeated after the brief had been relinquished. On the contrary, it was the representative who was obliged to inform his client of the notification. In T 247/98 the board confirmed that what determined whether a R. 81(1) EPC 1973 (R. 130(1) EPC) notification was to be sent to the representative was the legal situation at the time when the document was despatched.

In T 128/18 it was discussed whether the further representative was merely sub-authorised to act before the EPO only at certain stages of the proceedings. The board was unable to find literal and/or unequivocal support for this understanding in any of the documents on file. As two representatives had been appointed, notification to the further representative was sufficient (R. 130(2) EPC). If there had remained any doubt as to the correct recipient of notifications at that stage, the appropriate course of action would have been for either the original or the further representative to clarify the matter with the EPO. In the absence of any action or indication to this effect, the board concluded that notifications were correctly addressed to the further representative.

The facts underlying T 1281/01 were different to those in T 128/18. In T 1281/01 a formal change of representative had been duly and clearly communicated to the EPO, and the last appointed representative had actively pursued the case, so that he was able to react immediately and notify the EPO of the error.

However, in T 703/92 the written decision and minutes of the oral proceedings were sent not to the authorised representative but to the opponents. The board found that, as the provision relating to notification had not been observed, the question whether a notification had effectively taken place depended, in accordance with R. 82 EPC 1973 (R. 125(4) EPC), on whether and when the representative had received the full decision.

For details on representation, see chapter III.V.