In J 20/96 the EPO had waited one year and three months before requesting the appointment of a professional representative and nearly another year before asking for the appellant's new address. Although conceding that the Receiving Section had been slow to request the appointment of a professional representative, the Legal Board ruled that this was not a substantial procedural violation because such appointments were a matter for the appellant; similarly, it was also up to him or his representative to provide his address.
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_v_a_9_5_17_f.htm
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
3 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Case Law Book: V Priority
XCLR V A 9.5.17 Cases concerning documentation and communications passing between the EPO and the parties