Introduction
In decision T1882/23, the Board of Appeal ruled on a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC filed by Truphone Limited. The case revolved around the failure to pay a renewal fee and the subsequent loss of rights. The appellant, Truphone, sought to restore the rights of a patent application (EP 3205139) after missing a key deadline. The decision provides valuable insights into the application of time limits under Rule 136 EPC and highlights the Board's approach in handling cases where responsibilities are divided between a representative and in-house IP personnel.
Summary of the Invention
The patent application EP 3205139 concerns a method and system for network testing for telecommunications. The invention provides a way to test the performance of telecommunications networks by simulating various network conditions and diagnosing network traffic issues in real-time. The system allows telecom operators to optimize network configurations, predict potential failures, and improve overall network reliability and efficiency.
Summary of the Decision
Arguments of the Appellant (Truphone Limited):
- Truphone argued that the cause of non-compliance should be determined by the knowledge of their in-house IP person, not their appointed professional representative. The IP person responsible for the patent portfolio only became aware of the communication of loss of rights on 10 July 2019, after returning from extended sick leave. Therefore, Truphone claimed that the request for re-establishment, filed on 10 September 2019, was within the required two-month period.
Arguments of the EPO (Examining Division):
- The EPO rejected the request on the grounds that the professional representative, who received the notice of loss of rights on 4 June 2019, was responsible for managing the application before the EPO. The two-month period began on this date, making the 10 September 2019 filing late.
Decision of the Board
- The Board dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Examining Division. It ruled that the cause of non-compliance was removed when the professional representative received the notice on 4 June 2019, and the request for re-establishment was filed outside the two-month window required under Rule 136(1) EPC.
Lessons to be Learned
- Responsibility of the Professional Representative: Under Rule 130(1) EPC, the professional representative is the primary point of contact for all matters before the EPO, including fee payments, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Thus, the time limit for re-establishment begins when the professional representative becomes aware of the loss of rights.
- Strict Time Limits for Re-establishment: The decision underscores the strict application of time limits in re-establishment cases. Patent holders should ensure timely action and coordination between in-house teams and professional representatives to avoid missed deadlines.
- Clear Delegation of Responsibilities: This case demonstrates the importance of clear contractual agreements between applicants and representatives concerning the handling of renewal fees and other procedural actions before the EPO.
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.