Source: http://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2016/06/t-140213-deemed-to-be-withdrawn-as-no.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 03:01:19
Document Index: 25149101

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 3', 'Art. 86', 'Art. 164', 'art. 86', 'Art. 86', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 138', 'Art. 76', 'Art.86']

DeltaPatents : Case Law DeltaPatents EPO Case Law: T 1402/13 - Deemed to be withdrawn as no renewal fee paid, but when?
Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, EPC deviates from the former wording of Article 86(3) EPC 1973, thereby leaving no room for an interpretation that the application is only deemed to be withdrawn when both the due date and the period for paying the renewal fee plus the additional fee have been missed.
4.2 Both Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, and Rule 51(2) EPC take up the exact same wording to stipulate different consequences:
There is no doubt that Rule 51(2) EPC refers to the due date of the renewal fee as specified in Rule 51(1) EPC. Thus there would have to be a reason why Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, EPC, while using the same wording, should not refer to the same date but to the due date plus the additional six months. Yet not the slightest clue is to be found in the wording and context of these provisions pointing to such an interpretation. Thus, it is to be assumed that both identical terms refer to identical events. Or, as G 4/98 (Reasons 3.3) put it: "It is generally accepted that giving different meanings to one and the same expression is not desirable and should not be undertaken lightly".
This decision was confirmed by the Enlarged Board in G 4/98 (Reasons 7.2): "However, Rule 85a EPC does not prolong the normal time limits, but contains what its name says, namely a grace period, a possibility to remedy an otherwise potentially fatal non-observation of a time limit. The conclusion that the relevant date is not the expiry of the grace period, but the expiry of the normal period was reached in J 4/86 concerning the failure to file a request for examination of a European patent application. The well-reasoned decision is fully convincing and since there are no reasons to distinguish the case at hand from the situation underlying J 4/86, there is nothing more to add." The Enlarged Board (Reasons 3.3) also referred to its earlier opinion in G 1/90: "The loss of rights occurs on expiry of the time limit that has not been observed (point 6 of the Reasons)". While J 4/11 was still dealing with the old version of Article 86(3) EPC 1973, these considerations are to be applied to the new version of Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, EPC.
Thus, a functional interpretation of the new wording suggests applying Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, EPC as it stands and assuming that Rule 51(2) EPC provides for the possibility that deemed withdrawal can be reversed if the annual fee and the additional fee are paid within six months after the due date.
4.5.3 Moreover, the wording of Article 86(1), 3rd sentence, EPC being clear and without ambiguities and its interpretation not leading to unreasonable results, it seems to be more than doubtful whether it would be suitable at all to refer to the travaux préparatoires in construing Article 86(1) EPC (see T 1553/13, Reasons 8.4.1 to 8.4.3; G 1/11, Reasons 3).
4.6 Therefore, the clear wording of Article 86 (1), 3rd sentence, EPC is to be applied.
This decision T 1402/13 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T140213.20160531. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo "Full time: Liverpool 2-2 Villa" by Ben Sutherland obtained via Flickr under CC BY 2.0 license (no changes made).
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 08:45
I think it is not the first time that a BoA makes it clear that it is not binded by the Guidelines, but only from the EPC.
Anonymous 29 June 2016 at 13:03
But what about the orinciple of protecton of legitimate expectations?
Guidelines (November 2015), General Part, 3: as a general rule, parties can expect the EPO to act in accordance with the Guidelines until such time as they – or the relevant legal provisions – are amended. Notices concerning such amendments are published in the Official Journal of the EPO and on the EPO website.
The clear statement in the Guidelines about when the loss-of-rights occurs / the pendency ends, which is fully consistent with the statements given by the EPO when the EPC was amended, seems to be a very solid ground to base your expectations on as applicant!!
Anonymous 30 June 2016 at 13:23
Indeed, but still the Case Law gives the big picture here.
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_iii_s_1.htm
Perhaps the Board wanted to ensure that there will be no new trend, wherein an applicant does not pay the extra fees of the grace period, yet takes advantage of this extra time period for its own reasons.
WTGJ 28 June 2016 at 22:39
" the drafters failed to incorporate such a provision into the Implementing Regulations" - I wonder why. Hopefully the EPO and Administrative Council will finally amend the Implementing Regulations. Let's also hope that the incorrect filing of divisionals during a grace period of the parent is not a ground for revocation.
Sander van Rijnswou 29 June 2016 at 09:21
Would it be enough to amend the implementing regulations?
The board seems to say that Art. 86(1) requires an application to be deemed withdrawn from the moment the renewal fee isn’t paid at the regular time. Implementing regulations can’t contradict the convention (Art. 164(2)).
On the other hand, art. 86(1) says that renewal fees shall be paid ‘in accordance with the Implementing Regulations’. So maybe it would be enough if the Rules are explicit on this point.
We’ll probably never know though, because I don’t see the Administrative Council stepping in to change this.
Anonymous 30 June 2016 at 21:46
It should be sufficient to revert the wording of R. 51(2) to that of Art. 86(2) EPC 1973.
Anonymous 30 June 2016 at 15:07
The Board has a very good point: the articles and rules are clear. A logic and normal reading states that the application is deemed withdrawn on the due date (i.e. at the start of the grace period). The only possible reason to consider the application to be still pending during the grace period can be found in the Travaux Préparatoires. During my EQE preparations, it actually took me a quite some time before I could find a legal basis for the current approach of the EPO.
Having EPO practices that conflict with the normal/logical reading of the articles and rules is to be avoided. I assume that the EPO will have to change its current practice. Amending the EPC will take time and there seems to be limited benefit in doing so.
The major issue now is, indeed, what the effect will be for divisionals that have been filed in accordance with the guidelines. I would not hesitate to use the argument in revocation proceedings, but there is indeed the principle of legitimate expectations...
Anonymous 30 June 2016 at 21:41
In opposition and revocation proceedings the argument has no chance. The grounds for revocation are exhaustively listed in Art. 100 EPC (opposition) and Art. 138 EPC (national revocation).
Anonymous 1 July 2016 at 09:28
Yes it's not in the list of grounds, but there might still be ways around that. A first option that springs to mind is arguing that in view of Art. 76(1) and R. 36(1), the application would not be entitled to the filing and priority date of the application and proceed under the ground of novelty. It's far from ideal, as there is no real option to attribute another filing date to the divisional application, but it might still be worth a shot and there might be other options as well.
Roel van Woudenberg 7 July 2016 at 12:24
EPO Form 2522 12.15 "Notice drawing attention to |Ruke 51(2) EPC" is very clear - and the applicant can rely on information given by the EPO (Good faith):
"If the renewal fee and the additional fee are not paid in due time, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn (Art.86(1) EPC).
See e.g. https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EY56SNPT9093DSU&number=EP07107528&lng=en&npl=false
Roel van Woudenberg 10 October 2016 at 10:39
No changes were made to GL A-IV, 1.1.1 in the November 2016 edition after T 1402/13 was issued.The Guidelines of Novenber 2016 still consider the application deemed to be withdrawn at the end of the 6 month period of R.51(2):
In the event of non-payment of a renewal fee by the due date (Rule 51(1)), the application is pending up to the last day of the six-month period for payment of the renewal fee with an additional fee (Rule 51(2)), and a divisional application may still be filed during this period – even if the fees are ultimately not paid. Deemed withdrawal of the application takes effect on expiry of the six-month period.
Anonymous 13 October 2016 at 12:33
The situation is even less clear, I suppose. Does anyone have a suggestion regarding how to answer such a question within the EQE exam (or pre-exam)? I suppose this is not a major problem for paper D, where you can argue as long as you can, but what about the pre-exam, where a yes or no is required? The Boards are binded only by the Covnention and hence the GL follow the way at which the decisions are pointing to. What is the best to use as the most solid ground when answering such questions in exams? The Guidelines, the Boards decisions, or the Case Law as whole?
Peter 13 October 2016 at 13:17
My approach would be, for the EQE: mention GL 2016 as well as T 1402/13, explain both, and conclude that you follow the Guidelines. For pre-exam: if you are sure that this is the issue the question is about, don't think about it, follow the Guidelines, and diarize the time limit for an appeal.
Anonymous 9 January 2017 at 10:22
R51(2) is now amended as ""If a renewal fee is not paid on the due
date under paragraph 1, the fee may
still be paid within six months of the
said date, provided that an additional
fee is also paid within that period. The
legal consequence laid down in
Article 86, paragraph 1, shall ensue
upon expiry of the six-month period." OJ 2016 A102
I think the situation is more clear now.