2. Rule 134(5) EPC offers a safeguard in the case of non-observance of a time limit as a result of a dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail caused by an exceptional occurrence such as a natural disaster, affecting the locality where an applicant, a party or their representative resides or has his place of business.
3. Pursuant to this provision, any docu- ment received late will be deemed to have been received in due time if the person concerned offers evidence that:
(1) On any of the ten days preceding the day of expiry of a period, deliv- ery or transmission of mail was dislo- cated due to this natural disaster; and
(2) that the mailing or transmission of the document was effected within five days after mail delivery or transmission resumed.
6/2013Amtsblatt EPAOfficial Journal EPOJournal officiel OEB4. As for time limits and conditions ap- plicable under the PCT, applicants are referred to Rule 82quater.1 PCT. Thus, where the interested party offers satis- factory evidence that a time limit under the PCT was not met due to natural ca- lamity or other like reason in the locality where the interested party resides, has his place of business or is staying, and that the relevant action was taken as soon as reasonably possible (and no later than six months after the expira- tion of the time limit applicable in the given case), such delay in meeting the time limit shall be excused. This applies to international applications pending in the international phase. However, this provision does not apply to the priority period. Nevertheless, if an international application is received at the EPO after expiry of the priority period, restoration of the right of priority pursuant to Rule 26bis.3 PCT may be available.
5. If the EPO has issued a communica- tion noting loss of rights, applicants may request further processing under Article 121 EPC or re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC where appropriate.
Date retrieved: May 20, 2014