In J 13/90 (OJ 1994, 456) the applicant, a small firm employing about 15 people, was in takeover negotiations with another company. In the course of the negotiations a change of attorney took place. As a result of the unforeseeable breakdown in negotiations plus the fact that action had already been taken to replace the previous attorney, payment of the fourth-year renewal fee had been overlooked. This isolated mistake in a special situation was, in the Legal Board's opinion, excusable.

In J 11/06 the appellant submitted that, due to the removal and later change of the US representative, there was some confusion caused by this reorganisation. However, the Legal Board noted that no details at all had been given as to why this affected the payment of the renewal fee. Likewise in J 4/07 the Legal Board did not recognise the presence of exceptional circumstances where the responsibility of the law firm for the payment of the renewal fee ceased to exist roughly one month before the end of the time limit. The board considered a period of about one month to be largely sufficient for effecting payment, even in the wake of an attorney's move from one firm to another. The representative's submissions were also inadequate.

In T 1201/10 the board was convinced that there were exceptional circumstances prior to the due date which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the appellant (applicant). In the period leading up to the due date the appellant was unrepresented, as the firm representing the firm had withdrawn from representation and with this withdrawal, the sub-authorisation for the person who eventually became the new representative also ceased. These circumstances, which were predominantly outside the appellant's control, directly resulted in the appellant being unable to observe the time limit for payment of the renewal fee.