Introduction
In decision T 1882/23, the EPO Board of Appeal dismissed an appeal from Truphone Limited, which sought to restore its rights after missing a deadline for paying the fourth-year renewal fee for European Patent Application EP 15784742.7. The appeal centered on whether the professional representative’s knowledge of the missed payment deadline constituted the removal of the cause of non-compliance under Rule 136(1) EPC. The Board confirmed that the representative’s awareness triggered the deadline, rejecting the appellant’s argument that another party’s awareness should have been decisive.
Summary of the Invention
The invention in question, titled “Network Testing for Telecommunications”, relates to a system for testing network performance in telecommunication infrastructures. This system allows for efficient diagnosis of network issues by simulating different traffic conditions and identifying areas that need improvement. It is particularly useful for optimizing service delivery in wireless networks, ensuring better coverage and reliability.
Key Elements of the Decision
Arguments of the Appellant (Truphone Limited)
- Truphone argued that the responsible party for patent fee payments was their in-house IP person, not the professional representative who received the notice of loss of rights. They claimed that the IP person, who was on sick leave, only became aware of the missed payment later, and that this awareness should mark the removal of the cause of non-compliance.
Decision of the Board
- The Board rejected this argument, stating that the professional representative’s receipt of the notice was decisive under Rule 136(1) EPC, which sets the deadline for filing a request for re-establishment. The Board emphasized that legal certainty requires clear, objective deadlines, and that the internal division of responsibilities within a company does not affect the calculation of deadlines.
- The Board referred to case law (T 231/23, J 1/20, T 942/12) to support its conclusion that the professional representative’s awareness, not the internal IP person’s, triggered the relevant time limit.
Lessons to Be Learned
This decision underlines the importance of clearly understanding the roles of professional representatives in European patent law. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with deadlines lies with the appointed representative, regardless of internal arrangements within the company. Applicants must ensure that proper monitoring systems are in place to avoid missing crucial deadlines, as the two-month deadline for re-establishment requests under Rule 136(1) EPC is strict and cannot be extended based on internal organizational issue
Contact
If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.
To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.