enpan's Patent & Linux practice: EPO訴願遲繳導致訴願被撤銷

2014年12月24日星期三

EPO訴願遲繳導致訴願被撤銷 - T 2017/12案例討論

這篇案例告訴我們，費用遲繳（管控、期限）是個嚴重的問題，將導致程序終止，也使得專利權／申請權被撤銷。如果任何官方期限落於一些企業變動（如併購、商業交易）的期間，案件管理還是要持續。

EPC Article 108
Time limit and form
Notice of appeal shall be filed, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, at the European Patent Office within two months of notification of the decision. Notice of appeal shall not be deemed to have been filed until the fee for appeal has been paid. Within four months of notification of the decision, a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed in accordance with the Implementing Regulations.

EPC Article 122
Re-establishment of rights
(1)
An applicant for or proprietor of a European patent who, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, was unable to observe a time limit vis-à-vis the European Patent Office shall have his rights re-established upon request if the non-observance of this time limit has the direct consequence of causing the refusal of the European patent application or of a request, or the deeming of the application to have been withdrawn, or the revocation of the European patent, or the loss of any other right or means of redress.
(2)
The European Patent Office shall grant the request, provided that the conditions of paragraph 1 and any other requirements laid down in the Implementing Regulations are met. Otherwise, it shall reject the request.
(3)
If the request is granted, the legal consequences of the failure to observe the time limit shall be deemed not to have ensued.
(4)
Re-establishment of rights shall be ruled out in respect of the time limit for requesting re-establishment of rights. The Implementing Regulations may rule out re-establishment for other time limits.
(5)
Any person who, in a designated Contracting State, has in good faith used or made effective and serious preparations for using an invention which is the subject of a published European patent application or a European patent in the period between the loss of rights referred to in paragraph 1 and publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the mention of re-establishment of those rights, may without payment continue such use in the course of his business or for the needs thereof.
(6)
Nothing in this Article shall limit the right of a Contracting State to grant re-establishment of rights in respect of time limits provided for in this Convention and to be observed vis-à-vis the authorities of such State.

EPC Art. 108所規定歐洲訴願程序期限：EPO審定後兩個月內應提出「Notice of appeal」，並須繳費，否則視為未提出訴願通知（撤銷）；而訴願文應於EPO審定後四個月內提出。EPC Art. 122規定復權的例外條件（exceptional circumstances）。

T 2017/12案例討論：

過程：
EPO於2011年11月15日駁回系爭歐洲專利申請案No.01989207.4（申請日：2001年11月1日，優先權可溯及2000年美國案），專利涉及網路域名的取得與管理的技術。

申請人於2012年5月31日提出訴願並繳費，不過於5月31日提出這個訴願之前，於當月18日已經收到系爭專利案並未繳交延展費（renewal fee，歐洲以及歐洲主要國專利在審查階段就要繳交延展費用）使得專利申請案被撤銷的通知。這個時間距離規定（EPC Art.108）應於專利局審定後兩個月提出訴願以及繳費的期限（文中顯示在2012年1月25日，應該是自收到審定通知起算，EPC Art. 108）已經有一段時間了。

專利申請人於是主張上述EPC Art. 122，認為有理由（當時專利申請權人正在結束營業）證明並未注意到官方期限，而且被收購的時間也在訴願期限後幾天而已！

專利申請人提出以上似乎合理的復權理由，但是仍被訴願委員會駁回，理由之一是公司交易的初始計畫是在其訴願期限前結束，因此「原公司」仍須付注意的責任，專利失效的責任歸屬於原公司，因為此次交易完成已經是在訴願期限之後了。