< Back to latest news & events

Knowledge Hub

End of EPO “10 day rule” from 1 November 2023

July 2023

Any communications sent from the EPO on or after 1 November 2023 will no longer have the “ten day rule” applied to them. This means that correspondence are deemed to be delivered on the date printed on the correspondence, and any calculations of deadlines the recipient is required to reply by, are made from this date.

What is the ten day rule?

The 10 day rule was introduced by the EPO to factor in postal delivery delays when physical letters were the normal method of communication. Any deadlines in the letters were calculated from the date printed on the letter plus 10 days. This acted as a cushion for the letter to be sent and then delivered to the recipient.

For example, if a Notice of Intention to Grant letter was received from the EPO, setting a 4 month deadline to reply to, then the actual deadline to respond would be the date printed on the letter + 10 days + 4 months.

Why is the ten day rule being abolished?

In 2011 the EPO introduced the EPO electronic Mailbox which has grown in use. Now, 99% of EPO correspondence is sent electronically and postal service delays associated with physical letters are insignificant.  Therefore from 1 November 2023, the date printed on an electronic communication is the date it is assumed to be received, and any deadlines for responding to the communication are calculated from this date. For example if the EPO sent a Notice of Intention to Grant on or after the 1 November 2023, then the deadline to reply by would be the date printed on the communication + 4 months.

What safeguards are in place instead of the 10 day rule?

If the recipient alleges a communication was never received, the EPO must prove otherwise. If the EPO is unable to do this then it must send a new communication with a new date, which resets any deadlines using the date of the new communication.

If the recipient alleges that the communication was received after the date printed on the communication then one of two scenarios could unfold:

  1. If the communication was delivered within 7 days of the date printed on the communication, no adjustment is made and the period for responding is calculated from the date printed on the communication.
  2. If the document was delivered 7 or more days after the date printed on the documents then it is considered exceptionally late and any deadlines are extended by the number of days difference between the date of the delivery and the date on the document, minus 7 days.

What action do I need to take?

There is no action that needs to be taken regarding this rule change – but you need to be aware that the additional 10 days to respond to EPO deadlines can no longer routinely be relied upon for communications sent from the EPO on or after 1 November 2023.

If you would like further information or advice on this, please contact your usual HGF representative.

Latest updates

A New Era for AI Patents in the UK: Supreme Court Aligns with the EPO

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) vs Comptroller General of Patents, a decision which serves to significantly change the way …

Read article
Event - 23rd - 25th March 2026

HGF are Gold Sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026

HGF are proud sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026, taking place from 23-25 March 2026 at the Pullman Paris Montparnasse. Bringing together patent pioneers, in-house leaders and private practice specialists, IPBC …

Event details
Event - 8th - 11th February 2026

AUTM Meeting 2026

We are attending the AUTM Annual Meeting from 8–11 February, a flagship event bringing together technology transfer professionals from across the globe. AUTM connects innovators, universities, and industry leaders to …

Event details

The Antibody Series #5 | Epitope-defined antibody claims: when “binds to this epitope” becomes a risk of insufficiency

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews decisions made at the EPO; here, they reviewed an appeal in opposition proceedings after the revocation …

Read article

The Deity Shoes case: a question of design activity and the constraints on a designer’s freedom

The footwear brand Deity Shoes sought to enforce their Community Design rights, both registered and unregistered, against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. However, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design found fault …

Read article

The Antibody Series #4 | pH points in antibody claims: when “same pH ” becomes an addition of matter

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions; in this case, they reviewed a revocation in opposition of a patent relating to …

Read article

The Antibody Series #3 | Antibody code names in claims: why “ACZ885” is not sufficient to define the antibody

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions. In this case, they examined a claim that identified an antibody by an internal …

Read article
Event - 3rd February 2026

HGF Brand & Design Conference 2026

Join us on 3rd February 2026 for HGF’s Brand & Design Conference, the must attend event for in-house legal teams, brand leaders, creatives, and innovators shaping the future of IP. …

Event details