T 2948/18 - No search declaration

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the EPO as ISA had issued a "no search" declaration instead of a search report, because the application would be directed to a business method. The application is refused by the examining division.
• The applicant requests reimbursement of the appeal fee. 
• “ Since neither the PCT nor the EPC contains any provision allowing the EPO, as designated Office, to reimburse the international search fee, the Board is not competent to decide on the appellant's request, which therefore cannot be allowed”
• The claims are also not allowable and the appeal is dismissed. 

EPO T 2948/18 - link

3. Request for reimbursement of the search fee

3.1 At the oral proceedings, the appellant also requested reimbursement of the search fee.

The only search fee that was paid for the present application is the international search fee, paid under Rule 16.1(a) and (b) PCT to the International Bureau of WIPO as receiving Office and for the benefit of the EPO acting, under Article 154 EPC 1973 (corresponding to Article 152 EPC), as an International Searching Authority within the meaning of the PCT.

3.2 The present appeal lies from a decision of the Examining Division. The Examining Division is the department of the EPO, in these proceedings a designated Office under Article 153(1)(a) EPC, which is responsible for the examination of the Euro-PCT application corresponding to the international application (Article 153(2) EPC). In such proceedings, the provisions of the PCT and its Regulations are to be applied, supplemented by the provisions of the EPC (Article 150(2) EPC).

3.3 Since neither the PCT nor the EPC contains any provision allowing the EPO, as designated Office, to reimburse the international search fee, the Board is not competent to decide on the appellant's request, which therefore cannot be allowed (see also decision T 506/08 of 16 August 2012, reasons 13).

J 0010/17 - No request for restoration of priority

Key points

• In this case about restoration of priority by EPO as designated Office for a Euro-PCT application, the USPTO as rO had granted the restoration based on the 'unintentional' criterium. However, that decision has no effect with EPO (Rule 49ter.1(b) PCT). The applicant had failed to request restoration upon EP Entry (or within 1 month from EP entry), under Rule 49ter.2 PCT.
• The EPO had sent out a reminder about the time limit, but this reminder was imprecise. The representative had replied that the request for restoration was already submitted with the USPTO. That does not count, at least because filing the request with EPO as designated office requires payment of a fee equal to the Re-establishment fee (Rfees 2(1).13).
• The applicant argues legitimate expectations, based on an inaccurate reminder of EPO about the time limit for filing the request for restoration. The Board does not accept this. 
• Note that re-establishment of rights is ruled out for the 1 month time limit, J 13/16. 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The present appeal lies against the decision of the Receiving Section rejecting the request to reverse the finding that European patent application No. 13 845 204.0 does not enjoy a right of priority with respect to the claimed priority.

II. The application had been filed as an international application under the PCT on 7 November 2013, with the USPTO as receiving Office. Priority from an earlier US application of 9 October 2012 was claimed.

III. As the international application was not filed within the priority period, the applicant submitted a request for restoration of the right of priority with the receiving Office. The receiving Office decided to restore the right of priority based on the finding that the failure to file the international application within the priority period had been "unintentional". This information, however, did not reach the EPO until a later stage.

J 0013/16 - Restoration of priority by dO

EPO Headnote

1. If, in the international phase, a receiving Office (RO) has restored a right of priority under the "unintentional" criterion of Rule 26bis.3(a)(ii) PCT, the restoration is not effective in proceedings before the EPO acting as designated Office, since the EPO applies the "due care" criterion (Rule 49ter.1(b) PCT). In such cases [] the applicant must file a (new) request for restoration of a right of priority under Rule 49ter.2 PCT with the EPO acting as designated Office [within the period specified in Rule 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT] [i.e. within one month from the 31-month time limit or from the date of early entry]. For the purposes of Rule 49ter.2 PCT, the request filed with the RO under Rule 26bis.3(b) PCT cannot be taken into account in the proceedings before the EPO acting as designated Office.

2. In proceedings before the EPO, re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC is ruled out in respect of the period under Rule 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT for filing a request for restoration of a right of priority.

Key points

• Rule 49ter.2 PCT allows for the filing of a request fo restoration of priority with the dO within 1 month from the 31-month time limit (for EPO) or from the date of early entry; independently of whether restoration of priority was requested with the rO during the international phase. The Board considers this to be analogous to RE (for the priority periond, Rule 136(1), second sentence, EPC , and because Rule 136 EPC rules out RE for the period for RE, the same applies to Rule 49ter.2 (following G 5/93, 1.1.3). 

EPO J 0013/16 (J 13/16) - link

3. Restoration of the right of priority claimed in the present application

3.1 An international application for which the EPO acts as designated Office and which has been accorded an international filing date is equivalent to a regular European application and is referred to as "Euro-PCT application" (Article 11(3) PCT and Article 153(2) EPC). However, this principle of equal treatment between a regular European application and a Euro-PCT application has to be applied in the light of Article 150(2) EPC. This provision stipulates that international applications filed under the PCT may be subject to proceedings before the EPO (first sentence) and that in such proceedings, the provisions of the PCT and its Regulations are to be applied, supplemented by the provisions of the EPC (second sentence). However, in the case of conflict, the provisions of the PCT and its Regulations prevail over the provisions of the EPC (Article 150(2), third sentence EPC).

3.2 Where the international application was not filed within the period of 12 months from the date of filing of the priority application, Rule 26bis.3 PCT stipulates that the applicant may file a request for restoration of the right of priority up to two months after expiry of the priority period.

In the international phase, restoration of the right of priority can be granted under both the "due care" and "unintentional" criteria (Rule 26bis.3(a)). This means that the receiving Office (RO) ascertains whether the failure to file the international application within the priority period

- occurred in spite of due care required by the circumstances having been taken ("due care" criterion), or

- was unintentional ("unintentional" criterion).

Rule 49ter.1 PCT foresees in its paragraph (a) that, where the RO has restored a right of priority under the "due care" criterion, that restoration must, subject to its paragraph (c), be effective in each designated State. However, in accordance with Rule 49ter.1(b) PCT), a decision by a RO to restore a right of priority based on the "unintentional" criterion is effective only in those designated States the applicable laws of which provide for restoration of the right of priority based on that criterion or on a criterion which, from the viewpoint of applicants, is more favorable than that criterion.

J 0017/16 - Request under Rule 49.2.a PCT

Key points

• The Legal Board decides on an appeal against a refusal by EPO as dO of a request filed with entry into the European phase for reinstatement of priority under Rule 49ter.2.a.i PCT. 
• The Legal Board refuses the request for lack of due care. The Board applies the case law as developed for re-establishment under Art. 121 EPC 122 EPC (of course, 26.04.2018).

EPO J 0017/16 - link

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die am 18. April 2016 eingegangene und am 3. Juni 2016 begründete Beschwerde richtet sich gegen die Entscheidung der Eingangsstelle vom 22. Februar 2016, mit der der Antrag der Anmelderin auf Wiederherstellung des Prioritätsrechts zurückgewiesen wurde.

Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist die PCT-Anmeldung PCT/YYYY/YYYYY, eingereicht am 25. März 2014. Die in Anspruch genommene Priorität ist diejenige der deutschen Anmeldung DE ZZ ZZZ ZZZ, eingereicht am 13. Februar 2013.

Mit Bescheid vom 10. Juli 2014 hat das Internationale Büro (IB) als Anmeldeamt entschieden, das Prioritätsrecht im Hinblick auf das Merkmal der Unabsichtlichkeit wiederherzustellen. Gleichzeitig hat es festgestellt, dass die Wiederherstellung des Prioritätsrechts nicht auch deshalb erfolgen kann, weil das Versäumnis, die internationale Anmeldung innerhalb der Prioritätsfrist einzureichen ,,trotz Beachtung der nach den gegebenen Umständen gebotenen Sorgfalt" unterblieben ist

(Regel 26bis.3 a) i) PCT). Mit Eintritt in die europäische Phase hat die Beschwerdeführerin unter dem Datum des 3. August 2015 einen Antrag auf Wiederherstellung des Prioritätsrechts nach Regel 49ter.2 PCT beim Europäischen Patentamt als Bestimmungsamt eingereicht. Über diesen Antrag hat das Amt mit der angefochtenen Entscheidung vom 22. Februar 2016 entschieden. Dabei ist es zu dem Ergebnis gelangt, dass Wiederherstellung nicht gewährt werden kann, weil die Frist unter Heranziehung der unter Artikel 122 (1) EPÜ entwickelten Grundsätze nicht trotz Beobachtung aller nach den gegebenen Umständen gebotenen Sorgfalt versäumt wurde.

Die Beschwerde wurde von der Beschwerdeführerin am 18. April 2016 unter gleichzeitiger Einzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr eingelegt und mit Schriftsatz vom 3. Juni 2016 begründet.

[]

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die zulässige ? das heißt insbesondere form- und fristgerecht eingelegte ? Beschwerde ist begründet soweit sie auf Wiederherstellung des Prioritätsrechts sowie auf Ausschluss der Anlage X zum Schriftsatz der Beschwerdeführerin vom 8. November 2017 von der Akteneinsicht gerichtet ist. Im Übrigen ? im Hinblick auf den Antrag auf Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr ? ist sie unbegründet.

J 0010/15 - No appeal against EPO as rO

Key points

• The Board confirms established case law that appeals are not possible for decisions taken by EPO as the receiving Office for PCT applications.

EPO J 0010/15 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

Zuständigkeit der Beschwerdekammer

1. Nach Artikel 21 (1) EPÜ sind die Beschwerdekammern für die Prüfung von Beschwerden gegen Entscheidungen der Eingangsstelle, der Prüfungsabteilungen, der Einspruchsabteilungen und der Rechstabteilung zuständig.

Durch diese Bestimmung wird die Zuständigkeit der Beschwerdekammern erschöpfend auf die Prüfung von Beschwerden gegen die Entscheidungen der oben genannten Organe für die Durchführung der im Europäischen Patentübereinkommen vorgesehenen Verfahren beschränkt.

Grundsätzlich kann sich ein Gericht, bzw. ein Richter, nicht nach Bedarf neue Zuständigkeiten schaffen, nur der Gesetzgeber kann in einem solchen Zusammenhang tätig werden (vgl. G1/97, Nr. 3 b) der Entscheidungsgründe, ABl 2000, 322).

2. Aus dem dargestellten Sachverhalt sowie aus der vorhandenen Akte geht hervor, dass die angefochtene Entscheidung während der internationalen Phase der Patentanmeldung gefällt wurde, d.h. die Entscheidung wurde vom EPA, nicht als solches, sondern als internationale Behörde nach dem Vertrag über die internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet des Patentwesens (PCT) getroffen.

Mit Ausnahme des darin geregelten Widerspruchsverfahrens sieht der PCT, als internationales Übereinkommen, keine weiteren Rechtsmittelverfahren vor.

Auch nach ständiger Rechtsprechung sind die Beschwerdekammern grundsätzlich nicht zuständig, um die vom EPA als internationale Behörde getroffenen Entscheidungen zu überprüfen (J 14/98, Nr. 2.1 der Entscheidungsgründe; J 20/89, Nr. 2 der Entscheidungsgründe, ABl. 1991, 375; J 15/91, Nr. 2 der Entscheidungsgründe).

J 0003/17 - No restoration of priority

Key points

• For this Euro-PCT application, the PCT application was filed shortly after the end of the priority period with the Chinese patent office as receiving Office. The rO granted restoration of priority based on the "unintentional"  criterium. This does not bind the EPO (Rule 49ter.1(b) PCT) After entry into the EP phase, the applicant requested restoration of priority from EPO as designated Office under Rule 49ter.2 PCT (and paid the fee). The EPO refused the restoration of priority because the EPO applies the "all due care"  criterium. The applicant appealed.
• The Legal Board dismisses the appeal. The applicant had failed to show that all due care had been exercised.
• The decision is mostly interesting because restoration of priority under the PCT does not show up very often in the case law. 

EPO J 0003/17 -  link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. On 26 September 2014, the appellant (applicant) filed an international patent application with the Chinese patent office as receiving Office. The application claimed the priority of a Chinese patent application filed on 16 September 2013. Priority was therefore not claimed within the priority period.

II. The appellant submitted a request for restoration of the right to priority with the receiving Office in accordance with Rule 26bis.3(b) PCT. The same request was addressed to the European Patent Office as designated Office on 15 March 2016. The request was refused by decision of the Receiving Section of 12 December 2016. The appellant filed an appeal from this decision on 10 February 2017. The appeal fee was paid on the same day.

III. In the grounds for restoration the appellant explained as follows the events that had led to missing the deadline for filing the international application within the priority year:

The appellant used a Chinese agent, N.N., for filing PCT applications. According to instructions from the appellant, N.N. had been asked to draft the international application and file it on 22 August 2014, the priority deadline being 16 September 2014. These dates had been entered into N.N.'s electronic and paper time-limit monitoring system.

J 0019/16 - PCT dead after EP entry

Key points

• The applicant filed a PCT application with the USPTO, which was not competent as rO because the applicant was a German company. However, the USPTO forwarded the PCT application to the IB only 3 years after the PCT filing date. By that time, the acts for entry into the European phase had already been carried out. The IB then notified (in January 2009) the applicant that the fees for the international phase had not been paid. The applicant did not pay the fees to the IB, and the PCT application was considered withdrawn for failure to pay the fees.
• In 2014, the EPO Receiving Section informed the applicant that the application could not be processed by the EPO as designated office, as it was considered withdrawn in the international phase. This is the appeal against that decision.
• The Legal Board finds that the rO is still competent for failure to pay any fees in the international phase, even after entry into the national phase. The Board also notes that the applicant did not request review under Article 25(2) PCT. The Board also finds that the (implicit) request for excuse under Article 24(2) PCT, i.e. re-establishment of rights, was not substantiated as to the requirement of due care. 
• Finally, the Board rejects the argument based on the protection of legitimate expectations, because the applicant had received the IB's communications about failure to pay the fees for the international phase.
• Note 27.02.2019: EPO headnote added. This headnote overrules the remarks in " V 2/84" (OJ 1984 p.565; published decision of Examining Division) as far as V2/84 had assumed that Rule 51 PCT sets the time limit. 

EPO Headnote
The time limit, if any, for making a request to be excused under Article 24(2) PCT is subject to national law only. The two-month time limit pursuant to Article 25 PCT is therefore not applicable under Article 24(2) PCT.

EPO J 0019/16 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal complies with the requirements of Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 99 EPC and is therefore admissible.

2. The duly summoned appellant did not attend the oral proceedings. In accordance with Rule 115(2) EPC, however, the proceedings continued without it. In accordance with Article 15(3) RPBA, the board relied for its decision only on the appellant's written submissions. The board was in a position to decide at the conclusion of the oral proceedings since the case was ready for decision (Article 15(5) and (6) RPBA), and the voluntary absence of the appellant was not a reason for delaying the decision (Article 15(3) RPBA). The principle of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 113(1) EPC was observed since, by absenting itself from the oral proceedings, a party gives up this opportunity to be heard (see the explanatory notes to Article 15(3) RPBA cited in T 1704/06, not published in OJ EPO).

3. In its annex to the summons the board gave the following opinion on the merits of the case:

"2. According to Article 24(1)(ii) PCT, if for instance an inter­national application is considered withdrawn by virtue of Article 14(3)(a) PCT, the effect of the international appli­cation provided for in Article 11(3) PCT in principle ceases in any designated state, with the same consequences as the withdrawal of any national application in that state. Exceptions to this rule are provided in Rule 90bis.6(a) PCT, in Article 25(2) PCT and in Article 24(2) PCT.

3. The Board of Appeal has examined the file and considered the written arguments submitted by the Appellant, in particular in the statement of 16 December 2016 setting out the grounds of appeal. The Board's provisional view is that the loss of rights concerning the application at issue which occurred in the inter­national phase can no longer be remedied in the national phase and that the Receiving Section therefore - at least as regards the outcome - acted correctly when it refused the Appellant's request to further prosecute the application. In reaching that provisional view, which - if maintained - will lead to the dismissal of the appeal, the Board has taken into account the considerations set out in the following paragraphs.