Safeguards when making EPO payments

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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set-up to be correct, and that – even though an older version of the software was being used – this had not been withdrawn by the EPO.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

Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
The firm’s recent IP hire and launch of a new robotics industry group signal an effort to capture work emerging from AI entering the physical world
Another firm sets up shop in Dallas, bringing its patent disputes capabilities to one of the US’s busiest litigation venues
Entrepreneurial IP lawyers are still launching specialist firms, but increasingly with larger teams, broader coverage and greater infrastructure than the boutique model once implied
Jevon Louis explains how Covid led to a focus on local clients, discusses why mediation is successful in Singapore and reflects on the growing demand for AI advice
An increase in instructions from domestic companies and litigation for international clients are driving success for the Chinese IP firm, according to two lead partners
Ankur Sangal said he wants his team, nearly 30-strong already, to respond to a growing demand for specialist, commercially focused IP advice in a ‘rapidly evolving’ Indian market
Gift this article