T 2620/18 - More about the SME appeal fee; debit order correction

 Key points

• The appellant paid the appeal fee on 08.10.2018 at the SME rate without being an SME.
• The Board finds that the difference with the normal rate it is not a small amount lacking under Article 8 Rfees.
• The appellant requests correction under Rule 139. The Board considers it proven that the reduced fee rate was paid by mistake, basically because of the 'design choices' of the Online Filing Software (so this applies to selecting the wrong fee level by mistake in OLF).
• “wie von der Beschwerdeführerin vorgetragen, sind die Texte in den Textfeldern [in OLF] für die ermäßigte und die volle Beschwerdegebühr sehr ähnlich. Sie beziehen sich beide auf Regel 6 (4) und (5) EPÜ, einmal in positiver Weise, einmal in negativer Weise:” 
• I wonder if the EPO will ever change the Online Filing Software on this point. Until that time it seems very reasonable that the Board acknowledges that the two texts chosen by the EPO for identifying the fee levels are very similar. 
• “ Dabei ist zu berücksichtigen, dass der ermäßigte Gebührenbetrag mit dem vor dem 1. April 2018 geltenden "einheitlichen" Betrag für die Beschwerdegebühr übereinstimmte. Es erscheint daher glaubhaft, dass die Texte in den Boxen flüchtig gelesen wurden und sich der Leser am bisher geltenden, bekannten Gebührenbetrag von 1880 EUR orientierte und irrtümlich davon ausging, dass die volle Gebühr bezahlt wurde, obgleich dies ab dem 1. April 2018 lediglich der ermäßigte Betrag war.”
• However, the Board considers that the request for correction was not made timely, because it was made 8 weeks after paying the wrong appeal fee (payment 09.10.2018; request correction 07.12.2018) whereas the error had been noticed on 25.10.2018 and a debit order for the appeal fee at the normal rate had been filed on 25.10.2018 as well.
• This seems highly fact-specific.
• I note that GL A-X, 7.1.1 (2019) state that “ Payment is a matter of fact whereby a certain amount is transferred to and put at the disposal of the EPO. It is not, therefore, a procedural declaration which may be corrected pursuant to Rule 139. The same applies to debit orders.”
• The breakthrough decision was T 0317/19 as far as I know.

T 2620/18 - link

Decision text omitted.