1. Time limits and loss of rights resulting from failure to respond within a time limit
1.2 Duration of the periods to be specified by the EPO on the basis of EPC provisions
In principle, the duration of these periods is based on the amount of work which is likely to be required to perform the act in question (minimum of two months, maximum of four months, exceptionally six months). However, in order to facilitate the work of parties and the EPO, it has been decided, as a general rule, to adopt a uniform practice with respect to time limits. The current practice is as follows:
(i)if deficiencies to be corrected are only minor or purely merely formal or merely of a minor character(for examples, see those mentioned under C-V, 1.1); if simple acts only are requested, e.g. where a party is asked under Rule 83 to file documents they have referred to; or if observations are required on minor amendments only – two months
(ii)communications from an examining or opposition division on substantive matters – four months
(iii)communications from the Legal Division – two months.
The following issues raised in communications under Art. 94(3) are typically deemed as raising matters of substance requiring a time limit of four months:
– objections under Art. 52, Art. 53, Art. 54, Art. 56, Art. 82, Art. 83 or Rule 137(3)
– objections under Art. 76, Art. 123(2) or Art. 84 and affecting the claims
- deletion of redundant features in the claims.
The examining division sets a time limit of at least two months for adaptation of the description. However, it has the discretion to set a time limit of four months, depending on the effort involved (C-VI, 1.1).
The same considerations apply to time limits set in minutes of a telephone conversation or an interview because such minutes with time limits are formally issued as communications under Art. 94(3).
Where a communication according toissued under Art. 94(3) in examination is accompanied by a request for a translation of a priority document (Rule 53(3)), the period set for replying to that communication and for providing the translation is the same and is at least four months, regardless of the severity of the objections raised in the communication (see also A‑III, 6.8.2).
A longer time limit of up to six months is set only in the exceptional cases where it is clear that, in the circumstances, a four-month time limit cannot be observed. Each case must be judged on its individual merits and it is difficult to give general guidance, but a six-month time limit may be justified if, for example, the subject-matter of the application or patent or the objections raised are exceptionally complicated. Extending the time limit (i.e. beyond six months) will be allowed only in exceptional cases (E‑VIII, 1.6). Where the applicant is invited to submit the indication provided for in Rule 70(2), a six-month time limit running from the publication of the search report is appropriate.