Translation of "Wiedereinsetzungsantrag" in English

The present application for re-establishment of rights was made in due time and the relevant fee has been duly paid.

The effect of an unsuccessful request for re-establishment is that the application stays deemed withdrawn.

The Board of Appeal thus considers the request for re-establishment to be allowable.

The board confirmed the examining division's decision refusing the request.

The request for re-establishment still had a chance to maintain such substantive or provisional rights.

The application for restoration meets all the relevant requirements of Article 122 EPC, and is therefore admissible.

The board held that the re-establishment request was redundant and there was no need to consider it on its merits.

The request for re-establishment was refused by a decision of the Examining Division (Senior Formalities Officer) dated 6 May 1991.

Consequently, the department competent to decide on the application for restitutio was the Examining Division.

The board decided to consider the respondent's reply. The restitutio request was therefore redundant.

Many of these decisions relate to a request for re-establishment after a late payment of the appeal fee.

Shortly afterwards, in a letter dated 6 May 1991 (received on 6 May 1991), the applicant submitted (1) a request for correction addressed to the European Patent Office Munich and (2) an application for re-establishment of rights.

The unpublished case referred to did not appear to provide any basis for admitting the present application for re-establishment of rights.

An application for restitutio in integrum may, however, be submitted in such cases since Article 122 EPC applies in conjunction with Article 48(2) PCT.

By letter dated 11 November 1982, received on 12 November 1982, the representative filed an application for re-establishment of rights and enclosed a cheque to cover the appeal fee and the fee for this application.

The application is also justified, as, in spite of taking all due care necessitated by the circumstances, the patent proprietor had been prevented from observing the time limit for filing the translation of the claims with the European Patent Office.

As to whether the appellant enjoyed any other substantive rights after the grandparent application was deemed to be withdrawn on the expiry of relevant time limit, the appellant argues that (a) the right of the inventor under Article 60 EPC and (b) the right to have a request under Article 122 EPC for re-establishment of rights considered are both substantive rights within the meaning of G 1/09 which were still subsisting under the grandparent application when the parent application was filed.

Not only is there no provision in the EPC providing for such equivalent effect but also the nature of an order granting a request for re-establishment is inconsistent with it.

The matter is referred back to the first instance for the latter to establish whether incapacity on the part of the appellant's representative gave rise to an interruption of the proceedings in respect of European patent application No.... and if so, when such incapacity occurred, and to decide in the light of its findings whether the appellant's application for re-establishment of rights is admissible and can be allowed.

The allegation that it was believed that the payment had been made and that the communication from the EPO was unfounded is no compelling reason for inactivity either but rather a strong incentive to file a request for re-establishment and/or to contest the communication by a request for a decision under Rule 69(2) EPC together with filing the details of the payment, had such payment been made.

The request for restitutio and the fee therefor having been received in accordance with Article 122(2) and (3) EPC, it is admissible.

For the same reasons, the Board concludes that the fact that a request for re-establishment of rights is actually filed cannot thereupon make the application once again become pending.

On the other hand, the appellant referred to its request for re-instatement in the procedure of the divisional application as well, and the Receiving Section also considered this request on its merits, thereby implicitly considering it as if the request had indeed been filed in the purported divisional application instead of the parent application.

A request for re-establishment of rights which relies on general statements only and contains no specific facts does not satisfy the requirement for a duly substantiated request under R. 136(2), first sentence, EPC (J 19/05, T 1465/08, J 15/10).

Since the application for re-establishment of rights is thus governed by Article 24(2) of the Regulation on discipline, it is in the light of that provision and not directly under Article 122 EPC that the Board must consider whether the application can be allowed.

In a letter dated 17 August 1989 and received on 23 August 1989 the applicants referred to their request for re-establishment of rights of 3 August 1989 and forwarded statutory declarations by Mr D. of 16 August 1989, Mr C. of 9 August 1989 and Mr Co. of 14 August 1989, to whose contents attention is drawn.

In such cases, the loss of rights may have been caused by following the present practice or the need for an application for re-establishment of rights in due time may have been obscured by the present practice.