tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4723115770335072769..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Electronic filing at the EPO - how not to do itVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72849524624348141752020-11-16T06:13:14.073+00:002020-11-16T06:13:14.073+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.saivenkathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07265662654934474648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-91572580759286389282010-02-04T20:48:43.939+00:002010-02-04T20:48:43.939+00:00I've had problems with appeal submissions too....I've had problems with appeal submissions too. One submission was signed using the EPO-supplied epoline smartcard of an EPA colleague in relation to an opposition appeal oral proceedings, by way of the opposition form 2300. This mentions submissions after appointment of oral proceedings, so seemd rather convenient. The BA registry complained the signature was wrong, but it would have been fine if submitted with the online form 1038. They mumbled about the signature being non-compliant, but couldn't really explain how a signature applied to a form 2300 would be any different to one on a form 1038 if created using the same card. We send appeal submissions with forms 1038 now, and categorise using the appeal names available with that, and it seems to work.Helen Jonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4470192932131291092010-02-03T16:20:50.368+00:002010-02-03T16:20:50.368+00:00Interesting question.
I would say "both"...Interesting question.<br /><br />I would say "both", if still possible.<br />Because further processing will no longer be available if a patent is granted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6245386238807150202010-02-03T07:52:48.322+00:002010-02-03T07:52:48.322+00:00David has hit on an interesting legal point here. ...David has hit on an interesting legal point here. Indeed, if the signed version of the notice or grounds of appeal had not been filed within the period according to Rule 50(3), then the document in question is deemed not to have been filed. Where the document in question is the notice, this means that there is no appeal, because the notice was not filed.<br /><br />According to Rule 99(3), Part III of the regulations applies <i> mutatis mutandis</i> to appeals (which includes Rule 50).<br /><br />The signature of the notice or grounds is not a direct requirement under Rule 99 (which defines those requirements peculiar to an appeal), but rather a general requirement applied to all documents filed at the EPO (other than annexes). Furthermore, the failure to file the signed, corrected version of the notice of appeal means that there is no appeal, this is not a question of admissibility of an existing appeal. It is akin to a failure to provide a translation of the notice of appeal in time, which has the same effect of deemed non-receipt and the absence of any appeal (Art.14(4) and Rule 6(2)).<br /><br />What is interesting here is the question of which legal remedy applies. If the appellant in this case had not filed the corrected signed versions of the notice/grounds of appeal within the time limit of Rule 50(3), would he apply the legal remedy for failure of the Rule 50(3) time limit (further processing) or that for the failure to file the notice and/or grounds of appeal in time (re-establishment)? I would be very interested to know if anyone knows of any case law which resolves this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com