T 0186/22 - Specifying an incorrect deposit account number

Key points

•  In translation:  "The patent proprietor filed an appeal on January 31, 2022. In its notice of appeal, it stated that the appeal fee would be paid by direct debit from the deposit account via Online Filing 2.0. A direct debit order was issued on Form 1038 APPEAL dated the same day. This form listed the representative association as the account holder and indicated the deposit account number as 28000017."
•  By letter dated 11 February 2022, the patent proprietor clarified that it had made an error regarding the deposit account number and that the correct deposit account number was 28001760. It filed a request for correction of the debit order pursuant to Rule 139 EPC."" 
• The appeal fee was debited by the EPO from deposit account 28000017.
• "The fact that the appeal fee was debited from a third-party account rather than from the patent proprietor's account cannot alter the fact that the requirement of Article 108, second sentence, EPC is met. This provision does not require that the appeal fee be paid by the appellant. Rather, it is irrelevant to the question of whether the appeal is deemed to have been filed who paid the appeal fee. It is sufficient that an appeal fee (in the correct amount) was paid before the expiry of the appeal period."
• The reverse is not true: if the EPO finance department does not carry out the debit order, that does not mean that the payment is invalid.
• "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the patent proprietor's request under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC was also to be granted.  "
• "Even assuming that legal certainty must be taken into account, although the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not mention it as a prerequisite for correction, the opponent's arguments are unconvincing. The mere fact that these are inter partes proceedings does not mean that the criterion of "legal certainty" is to the detriment of the petitioner (see T 445/08 of 26 March 2015, Reasons 10, 11, 13.6; T 317/19, Reasons 2.4.3(a) and 2.4.4(a)). Thus, in inter partes proceedings T 445/08, the board concluded that legal certainty did not preclude the request for correction (T 445/08 of 26 March 2015, Reasons 13.6).

  In the present case, too, legal certainty or the interests of the opponents do not preclude granting the request for correction. It was obvious to the opponent (and to the public) from the outset that the patent proprietor intended to file an appeal. The fact that this filing might have been erroneous was not apparent from the appeal or the debit order. Rather, the patent proprietor itself indicated this in its letter of February 11, 2022, and filed a request for correction in the same letter. This request for correction was also filed promptly, namely 10 days after the filing of the notice of appeal and the debit order."

• The opponent also appealed, and the patent was revoked.

EPO 

The link to the decision can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t220186du1