T 1618/11 () of 20.9.2013

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T161811.20130920
Date of decision: 20 September 2013
Case number: T 1618/11
Application number: 05703708.7
IPC class: H03M 13/19
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 91 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Inspection matrix generation method, data transmission system, encoding device, decoding device, and inspection matrix generation program
Applicant name: NEC Corporation
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 122
Keywords: Re-establishment of rights - yes


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. In the present case, the time limit for filing a statement of grounds of appeal under Article 108 EPC ended on 27 June 2011. However, the letter with the statement of grounds was not received at the EPO until 29 June 2011. With letter of 26 August 2011, received at the EPO on the same day, the appellant requested re-establishment of rights.

II. In the reasons for that request, the representative of the appellant explained how preparing and mailing of documents is organized and performed in his office. He also submitted that it was an isolated mistake by an experienced and otherwise reliable assistant that caused the belated filing of the statement of grounds of appeal.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The formal requirements of a request for re-establishment, including the observance of the time limit (Rule 136 EPC), are met.

2. It has been demonstrated that the appellant, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, was unable to observe the time limit for filing the statement of grounds of appeal. The Board is satisfied that the representative of the appellant took all reasonable steps to ensure that preparing and mailing of documents was carried out correctly in his office. Therefore, an isolated mistake by an assistant may not be imputed to the representative, and hence not to the appellant either.

3. As a consequence, the appellant has to have his rights re-established (Article 122(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appellant is re-established in his rights.

Quick Navigation