< 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

Central Division takes pragmatic approach to late-filed submissions and revokes VMR’s patent for lack of inventive step

In Njoy v VMR (UPC_CFI_308/2023), the Paris Central Division confirmed that the “front loaded” provisions of the UPC should be interpreted in line with the principles of proportionality and procedural …

Read article

Celebrating Success – Director Promotions

We are proud to announce that 7 of our team have been promoted to director effective from 1 December 2024! These promotions recognise the outstanding contributions demonstrated by these individuals, who …

Read article

G2/24: A new referral to the Enlarged Board seeks to clarify whether a third party who intervened during appeal proceedings can acquire full appellant status

In the referring decision, T1286/23, the Board of Appeal referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: After the withdrawal of all appeals, may the proceedings be continued …

Read article

UPC first FRAND judgment results in injunction against OPPO

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & anor UPC_CFI_210/2023 – Mannheim Local Division (Tochtermann, Böttcher, Brinkman & Loibner) – 22 November 2024. The UPC issued its …

Read article

The IP Lawyer’s Cheat Sheet: Lucy Johnson on Innovation, Legislation, and Strategy

The world of intellectual property is on the brink of significant transformation. From navigating the use of AI technology to staying ahead of increasingly sophisticated bad actors, IP professionals must …

Read article

Edwards v Meril confirms UPC’s jurisdiction over acts of infringement before the court came into force

In Edwards v Meril (UPC_CGI_15/2023), the UPC’s Munich local division refused to stay infringement proceedings pending an appeal on the central division’s finding of validity of the patent in amended …

Read article