| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T042898.20010223 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 February 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0428/98 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 92890079.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C02F 3/20 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | DE | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Klima, Hans-Horst | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Rudolf Messner | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.05 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. Where a communication from the Office notifies an applicant that he has missed a time limit, the cause of failure to complete the omitted act within the meaning of Article 122(2), first sentence, EPC is as a rule removed on the date when the applicant actually receives the communication, provided that failure to complete the act was purely due to previous unawareness that the act had not been completed. The legal fiction of deemed notification under Rule 78(3) EPC (in the version in force until 31 December 1998) has no effect on the date of removal of the cause of non-compliance, even if this works against the applicant because the actual date of receipt of the communication precedes the date calculated according to Rule 78(3) EPC (2.2). II. An appellant may rely on information which the board's registrar can be proved to have provided by telephone concerning the method for calculating a time limit the appellant has to observe before the board if the point of law on which that information is based has at that time not yet been clarified in the case law of the boards of appeal (2.2). III. Generally speaking, to satisfy the requirement of all due care, a system for monitoring time limits must not leave time-limit monitoring in the hands of just one person, but must incorporate at least one effective cross-check (confirmation of established case law, 3.5). IV. Failure to submit evidence despite being requested to do so by the board may be viewed as a sign that the evidence would perhaps not confirm what has been claimed (3.6). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Re-establishment of rights in respect of time limit for filing grounds of appeal Application filed in time (yes) Reliance on information justified Satisfactory evidence of all due care (no) Insufficient proof of normally satisfactory time-limit monitoring system Failure to submit evidence despite board's request to do so Sign that veracity may be doubted |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t980428ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
37 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
Case Law Book: III Amendments
XCLR III E 5.4 Isolated mistake within a satisfactory system for monitoring time limits or for processing mail