Key points
- The OD issued the impugned decision on 12 June 2020. The Statement of grounds was filed 5 May 2021, too late, but only 9 days late.
- The reason is that the notification of the decision to the opponent with a registered letter failed twice. The decision was then notified by public notice, i.e. by the publication of a notice in the European Patent Bulleting on 25 November 2020, cf. Rule 129(1) EPC.
- The decision is therefore deemed to be notified one month after the publication (Rule 129(2) EPC and Dec. Pres. OJ 2007 SE 3, K.1)
- The period for filing the SoG, therefore, expired Monday 26 April 2021 (R.134(1)).
- The professional representative filing the SoG probably added the 10 day period of Rule 126(2), but that period of course only applies for notification by post. Moreover, the professional representative (who is "grandfathered"* it seems) probably added the 10 day period at the end, so 25.12.2020 + 4 m = 25.04.2021 + 10 d = 05.05.2021.
- The Board finds that the appeal is inadmissible as late-filed.
- The professional representative had laid down representation shortly before the hearing before the OD, the opponent is located in an EPC Contracting State, so the decision of the OD was to be notified to the opponent.
- * = due account should be given to "the racist roots of the term “grandfather” protection" https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/real-estate-condemnation-trust/practice/2021/grandfather-clause-racist-origins/
EPO T 0194/21
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/05/t-019421-incorrectly-applying-10-day.html
