In T 1198/03 the respondent (opponent) sent his reply to the appellant's statement of grounds of appeal one day late and requested that, if the board did not otherwise consider the reply, he be re-established into the time limit for filing the reply. The board decided to consider the respondent's reply. The request for re-establishment was therefore redundant.

In T 2317/13 the board held that the re-establishment request was redundant since the delay in filing the statement of grounds of appeal had been only of minutes and the lateness of the filing was truly minimal (the first four pages of the statement of grounds were in fact received before the time limit expired). According to the board, the discretion given to the board by Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007 to admit and consider late-filed submissions which amended a party's previously filed written case extended to the late admission and consideration of the written case itself (see T 1198/03).