5.5.2 Vigilance nécessaire de la part d'un mandataire agréé
Overview
Vous consultez la 9e édition (2019) de cette publication ; pour la 10e édition (2022) voir ici |
Lorsqu'il y a représentation du demandeur par un mandataire agréé, il ne peut être fait droit à une demande de restitutio in integrum que si le mandataire lui-même a fait preuve de toute la vigilance exigée du demandeur ou du titulaire du brevet par l'art. 122(1) CBE (J 5/80, JO 1981, 343). En d'autres termes, les exigences de l'art. 122 CBE valent non seulement pour un demandeur mais aussi pour son mandataire (T 1149/11).
L'abondante jurisprudence concernant l'obligation de vigilance de la part du mandataire agréé dans ses rapports avec un auxiliaire est traitée ci-dessous au présent chapitre, III.E.5.5.4.
- T 600/18
No conclusive case has been submitted with the request for re-establishment of rights that explains why an attempt was (erroneously) made to pay the appeal fee using a form that was no longer accepted at the EPO. Article 122 EPC and the relevant case law does not excuse mistakes by the representative himself or herself that are caused by the ignorance of the latest provisions even if the representative does not normally perform the duty of paying fees himself or herself.
As he or she is the one that is expected to instruct and supervise his or her staff, he or she must always keep informed of the latest developments on how to handle the payment of fees.
As he or she is expected to remember what he or she has learned even in stressful situations it cannot be acknowledged that the mistake has happened despite all due care having been taken.
The situation (stress caused by an upcoming snow storm) cannot be equated with one where a patent attorney was incapable of taking sound decisions due to sudden serious illness or a sudden and unexpected bereavement.