< Back to latest news & events

News

End of EPO “10 day rule” from 1 November 2023 – 4 weeks to go

October 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 communications 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 action do I need to take?
There is no specific 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.

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.  Up to 31 October 2023, 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.  From 1 November 2023, this will no longer be the case.

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.

 

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

Latest updates

Agritech Thymes: A review of protection for gene edited plants

As we head into a new season, it’s a good time to revisit the current status of protection for Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) and plants derived from New Genomic Techniques …

Read article

Avoiding Legal Pitfalls: The Notting Hill Bag Company's Costly Mistake

[2025] EWHC 1793 (IPEC) – Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Notting Hill Bag Company Limited v The Notting Hill Shopping Bag Company Limited, Nangialai Takanai, The Notting Hill Shopper Bag Ltd, Ehsanullah …

Read article
Event - 12th September 2025

Wolters Kluwer Breakfast Panel on AI & IP at AIPPI

Sofie McPherson, Patent Director at HGF, will be moderating a special breakfast panel session hosted by Wolters Kluwer at the AIPPI World Congress in Yokohama on 15 September 2025. Session …

Event details

T1465/23 – No Narrowing by Description—EPO Board Terminates Inventive Step Analysis for Arbitrary Modifications Citing G1/24 and G1/19

“The potential patentability of a specific narrow embodiment…cannot render a claim allowable which, due to its breadth, encompasses a multitude of other, non-inventive embodiments” – r. 3.5. Background EP3113515 was …

Read article

Wrestling with G1/24 – How should the claims be interpreted in view of the description?

In G1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) codified how claims should be interpreted for assessing patentability: in consultation with the description. However, the decision was light on how, in …

Read article

Welcome to HGF Presents - New Video Series

Introducing HGF Presents a new video series delivering practical insights into European Patent Law and practice. Curated by our leading experts in chemistry, life sciences, technology & engineering, each concise …

Read article

Seminar on Incorporating Trade Secrets into your IP Strategy

HGF is hosting a Seminar on Incorporating Trade Secrets into your IP Strategy which will be followed by networking, apero, and snacks. The Seminar will be held on Wednesday, 10th …

Read article

PRESS RELEASE – HGF strengthens European presence with three new Partners in France and Germany

HGF is pleased to announce the arrival of three new partners, further strengthening its European presence. Two partners will be joining the firm’s fast-growing French practice, and one will join …

Read article