Decisions on requests for re‑establishment of rights are taken by the UPP Division. If all the requirements are met and the request is granted, the proprietor is informed accordingly (EPO Form 7115). If the request is granted, tThe legal consequences of the failure to observe the time limit will, subject to Rule 22(7) UPR, be deemed not to have ensued (Rule 22(5) UPR).
If the request for re‑establishment cannot be granted, for instance if it is deemed inadmissible or not allowable, the UPP Division issues first a communication (Rule 20(1) UPR in conjunction with Art. 113 EPC, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Rule 20(1) UPR). The communication informs the proprietor of the UPP Division's intention to reject the request for re‑establishment of rights and includes the a statement of the grounds for the intended rejection. The proprietor is then invited to file any comments or supporting evidence within a non-extendable time limit of one month from receipt of the communicationa period to be specified (see 8.6.1). The proprietor's response may be taken into account only if it is submitted within the time limit set and if it does not extend beyond or alter the facts and grounds as presented in the original request. If needed, the UPP Division may invite the proprietor to file further comments or supporting evidence prior to taking a final decision. Oral proceedings may be held either if the UPP Division considers this to be expedient or at the request of any party (Rule 21(1) UPR, see also 8.7).
After considering all duly presented facts and evidence, the UPP Division takes a final decision to grant or reject the request for re‑establishment of rights. A decision to grant the request is communicated to the proprietor via EPO Form 7155 unless a reasoned decision to reject the request is to be issued (EPO Form 7099). Grounds for a decision will only be provided if the request is rejected. An action against such decision can be lodged before the UPC under Arts. 32(1)(i) and 66 UPCA (see 7.7.18.9.1). Attention is also drawn to Rules 88 to 97 RoP UPCRules 88 et seq. RoP UPC.
Where a request for re‑establishment of rights has been requested in respect of the period specified in Rule 6(1) UPR filed together with the request for unitary effect is rejected, and the UPP Division decided to reject the request, the UPP Division will, alongside the decision to reject the request for re‑establishment, issue an intention to reject the request for unitary effect, citing the grounds for that decision. The proprietor will have the opportunity to file comments within a non‑extendable time limit of one montha period to be specified (see 8.6.1). These comments will be taken into account before a final decision is issued (see 2.6). However, since the request for re‑establishment of rights has been rejected and the requirements set out in Rule 7(3) UPR are thus not fulfilled, a decision to reject the request for unitary effect will typically follow. Upon expiry of this time limit, a decision on the request for unitary effect will be issued (see 2.4).An action against such a decision can be brought before the UPC (see 8.9.1).