b)
Filing of divisional application 

In J 2/08 (OJ 2010, 100), the appellant (applicant) contended that the EPO had violated the principle of good faith on several occasions (omission to inform in respect of filing a divisional application; publication of the divisional application; late noting of loss of right). In his view, by taking no action the EPO induced the appellant into believing that everything was in good order with the divisional application, until it became too late to file an appeal against the decision refusing the parent application. In the board's view it was exclusively the responsibility of the applicant and his representative to decide on the factually and legally most appropriate filing actions to be taken. Furthermore no legitimate expectations concerning the validity of an application may be based on the fact that an application has been published. Finally, the communication under R. 69 EPC 1973, which is not just a warning but a procedural act, had to be sent after the end of the appeal period.

Quick Navigation