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

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set-up to be correct, and that – even though an older version of the software was being used – this had not been withdrawn by the EPO.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

Attorneys contemplate whether clients using AI for legal guidance is beneficial to attorney-client relationships or more of a nuisance
Richard de Bodo, who had a lengthy career at international firms, shares how he will address client needs and praises the unique offerings of smaller firms
An Australian top court decision clarifying honest concurrent use and wins by publishers against AI platforms were also among the top talking points
AIPPI has pulled the plug on its planned 2027 World Congress, and INTA has delayed hosting a meeting there, but the concerns won’t abate
Despite being outspent by a wealthy opponent, a trial attorney at King & Spalding says ‘relentless pursuit of the truth’ helped his team secure a $420m damages award for mobile gaming client
190 drugs face loss of exclusivity between 2026 and 2030, with the list including Bristol Myers Squibb’s blood-thinning drug Eliquis and immunotherapy medication Opdivo
Nokia, represented by a team from Bird & Bird, adjudged to have made fair offer to Asus and Acer in UK SEP dispute
Azhar Sadique and Kane Ridley, who founded the London office in 2023, are now both working in legal tech and AI-related roles, while another UK-based lawyer has also left
Partner Pierre Pérot rejoins the firm he left in 2022 alongside another returning lawyer, associate Camille Abba
Vaping dispute, in which Stobbs and Brandsmiths are the representatives, tested how the UK's Human Rights Act can apply to injunctions restraining unjustified threats
Gift this article