< 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

IP Ingredients, Part 16: Food Supplement or Pharmaceutical? Understanding Trade Mark Distinctions

What is the difference between pharmaceuticals and food supplements?  This may not be a question raised all that often by the average person, but it can be very important when …

Read article

IP Ingredients: Summer case law review

As the summer reaches its peak and we reach for the ice-cream, it’s time to catch up on the legal battles in the food & drink sector that have been …

Read article
Event - 8th August 2024

pro-manchester Retail Lunch

HGF is proud to be sponsoring the pro-manchester Retail Lunch. The pro-manchester Retail Lunch will be held at the Manchester Marriott Victoria & Albert Hotel on Thursday, 8th August. The …

Event details

eControl System’s marketing and selling practices create unfair impression of a commercial connection with AGA

In July 2023, iconic British brand AGA Rangemaster Group Limited (“AGA”) filed a trade mark infringement and copyright complaint directed to eControl System’s[1] second-hand refurbished AGA cookers. The case vindicates …

Read article

Fuelling innovation – The IP Behind Sports Nutrition

The importance of innovation in sporting success With the Euros in full swing and the Olympics on the horizon, this summer elite athletes will be pushed to the limits of …

Read article

UPC issues two first instance decisions on infringement

Last week, just over one year since it became operational, the UPC handed down its first major decision in an infringement action. Here, the UPC met one of its primary …

Read article