T 0491/25 - Omitting the co-applicant

Key points

• The professional representative (solo practitioner, it seems) files a Notice of appeal using the annotations field in Form 1038, referring to 'the appellant' (with automatic debiting). The entire text is as follows:
• 
• After the filing of the statement of grounds, the Board's registry issues an invitation to state the name and address. On the same day, the representative provides the applicant's name and address.
• However, the application was filed by joint applicants (two human persons) and the representative stated the name of only one of the applicants (the first-named applicant) in his reply.

• The second named applicant is a natural person with address in Russia. 

• Five months later, the Board issues a communication.
• In reply (again consisting of Form 1038 and using the annotations field), the representative files a request under Rule 139, first sentence, to the effect that the correct appellants are the two persons jointly.
• "The request for correction merely asserts that the notice of appeal was actually and truly intended to be filed on behalf of the joint applicants and that one of the two co-applicants had been [...] omitted due to a mistake. It is not accompanied by any evidence of this true intention or by arguments explaining why this alleged true intention was "immediately apparent" in spite of the contrary indication given in the letter of 4 April 2025."
• "In its letter of 4 April 2025, the appellant confirmed that the (only) appellant was [person X]. This is an explicit indication that it had in fact been the true intention to file the appeal on behalf of [person X] as the sole appellant, rendering it no longer "immediately apparent" (cf. G 1/12, Reasons 37) that the appeal had been intended to be filed on behalf of both co-applicants. For example, the representative may have truly believed that [person X] was the only applicant, which would mean that the notice of appeal did not contain a mistake in the sense of an expression deviating from the representative's actual intention (see J 7/19, Reasons 6 and 7; T 2474/19, Reasons 2.6.2 and 2.7.1; and T 71/21, Reasons 6.4.2), or he may for some other reason have decided to file the appeal on behalf of [person X] only."
• "The board concludes that the applicants have not shown that the requested correction of the notice of appeal introduces what was originally actually intended, even less so according to the "heavy burden of proof" referred to in [G1/12]".
• In view of the above, the request for correction of the notice of appeal under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC is to be refused, and the appeal is to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 107 and Rule 101(1) EPC).
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t250491eu1