EPO: English version of notice concerning communications under amended Rule 161 EPC

The European Patent Office has issued today an English version of its notice of 29 June 2010 (previously available only in German) concerning communications under amended Rule 161 EPC (thank you, Birgit Clark and Simon Roberts, for the pointer!). The notice concerns the calculation of the time limit according to Rule 36 EPC, brought in on 1 April 2010 (noted on IPKat here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Under Rule 36, divisionals must be filed within two years from a non-unity objection or from the first communication from the Examining Division. The question is: what is a communication from the Examining Division, namely, is a communication under Rule 161 a communication in the sense of Rule 36? The short answer is no:
A communication under Rule 161 EPC (both in its amended form as well as in the version applicable until 31 March 2010), despite emanating from the examining division in compliance with Rule 10 EPC, is not a substantive communication within the meaning of amended Rule 36(1) EPC and therefore does not cause the time limit for the filing of voluntary or mandatory divisional applications to start.
Practitioners are advised to read the notice in full here.
EPO: English version of notice concerning communications under amended Rule 161 EPC EPO: English version of notice concerning communications under amended Rule 161 EPC Reviewed by Mark Schweizer on Friday, July 16, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. Anyone for fudge?...

    "5. In deviation from the procedure set out in points 3 and 4, if the WO-ISA or IPER was issued before 1 April 2010, the applicant may receive EPO Form 1226A even if the WO-ISA or IPER was positive...
    ...In these transitional cases, applicants may consequently receive EPO Form 1226A, which appears to require them to respond to a positive WO-ISA or IPER, when in fact no loss of rights will occur if the applicant does not react."

  2. I am still puzzled: if the text of the law is clear, can the administration take a deviating position by means of some creative interpretation? I would believe that applicants are well advised to file any divisional applications within 2 years from the Rule 161 Communication.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.