T 1444/15 - Re-establishment renewal fee

Key points

• The Board refuses re-establishment of rights for failure to pay a renewal fee. 
• " In the present case, neither the appellant's European professional representative nor his US representative were responsible for ensuring renewal fee payments. It was agreed that the responsibility rested upon the applicant [a natural person who is also the sole inventor] who employed the services of CPA to monitor the time limits and to effect payment.
• " Despite not being responsible for the payment of renewal fees, both the appellant's European professional representative and his US representative informed the appellant of an impending loss of rights with respect to the present application after having received the EPO communication [...]. Considering their "secondary responsibility", the Board is satisfied that the appellant's representatives acted with all due care required by the circumstances." 
• The Board does not excuse the applicant's failure to provide CPA with instructions to pay the fee. 

EPO T 1444/15 - link

4. In the present case, neither the appellant's European professional representative nor his US representative were responsible for ensuring renewal fee payments. It was agreed that the responsibility rested upon the applicant and inventor who employed the services of CPA to monitor the time limits and to effect payment.

All due care by the appellant's representatives

5. Despite not being responsible for the payment of renewal fees, both the appellant's European professional representative and his US representative informed the appellant of an impending loss of rights with respect to the present application after having received the EPO communication dated 5 December 2012 (see Annex C to document D1). Considering their "secondary responsibility", the Board is satisfied that the appellant's representatives acted with all due care required by the circumstances.