Safeguards when making EPO payments

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Safeguards when making EPO payments

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
deadline-6575681.jpg

A case concerning a payment made after the nine-month opposition period because of a problem with the EPO’s online filing software offers a useful checklist, says Edward Farrington of Inspicos

A recent technical board of appeal (the Board) decision, T 480/21, has highlighted the circumstances in which periods for making payments to the EPO can be extended, under the EPO’s Arrangements for Deposit Accounts (ADA).

In T 480/21, a professional representative attempted to file an opposition on the last day of the nine-month opposition period. They received repeated error messages from the EPO’s online filing system, and eventually filed the opposition and associated evidence by fax.

However, the EPO does not accept payment orders sent via fax, and the representative therefore made the payment the following day. As the payment was made after the nine-month opposition period, the opposition was deemed by the EPO not to have been filed. The opponent appealed this finding.

Point 5.5 of the ADA published in 2019 provides a safeguard, in that “If a payment period expires on a day on which one of the accepted means of filing debit orders under point 5.1.2 is not available at the EPO, the payment period is extended to the first day thereafter on which all such means as are available”.

The Board firstly considered the individuals involved to be highly experienced, and their witness statements to be credible. Secondly, the Board considered the computer set-up to be correct, and that – even though an older version of the software was being used – this had not been withdrawn by the EPO. The Board also found that the error message was genuine and that a faulty internet connection was unlikely.

Furthermore, the Board found that the EPO’s responsibility extended to software installed by users outside the EPO’s premises and servers.

On January 19 2024, it was therefore judged that the error was attributable to the EPO, and thus point 5.5 of the ADA applied. Due to the error in the present case, the payment period was extended to the next day, and was deemed to be validly paid.

Decision T 480/21 presents a useful checklist for actions to be taken if the EPO’s online filing software is suspected of malfunctioning when making a payment to the EPO.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel explain how AI can create brand protection headaches, but also be used to fight fakes
An AI copyright update in the UK and IP protection efforts by Temu and WeChat were also among the top talking points this week
Mary Till says she has been helping clients navigate policy questions, including staffing concerns at the office
A seminal decision concerning second medical use patents and questions over confidentiality were among the top talking points this fortnight
Managing IP considers some of the key themes from the 2025 Annual Meeting and offers some tips for London 2026
A comparison of the 2024 and 2025 editions of the Managing IP EMEA Awards reveals the firms and companies that have been dominating Europe’s IP market year after year
Tuesday's coverage includes BD tips for aspiring partners, and a foray into the world of SEPs
Exclusive data reveals law firms are failing to go above and beyond for their corporate clients, with in-house counsel saying advisers should consider more transparent billing processes
Arty Rajendra and Gary Moss discuss why ‘thorough and intense’ preparation, plus the odd glass of wine, led to a record FRAND victory for their client
Monday’s coverage includes news of a potentially 'game-changing' trademark development in China and how practitioners are using AI
Gift this article