< Back to latest news & events

News

End of EPO “10 day rule” from 1 November 2023

July 2023

Any communications sent from the EPO on or after 1 November 2023 will no longer have the “ten day rule” applied to them. This means that correspondence are deemed to be delivered on the date printed on the correspondence, and any calculations of deadlines the recipient is required to reply by, are made from this date.

What is the ten day rule?

The 10 day rule was introduced by the EPO to factor in postal delivery delays when physical letters were the normal method of communication. Any deadlines in the letters were calculated from the date printed on the letter plus 10 days. This acted as a cushion for the letter to be sent and then delivered to the recipient.

For example, if a Notice of Intention to Grant letter was received from the EPO, setting a 4 month deadline to reply to, then the actual deadline to respond would be the date printed on the letter + 10 days + 4 months.

Why is the ten day rule being abolished?

In 2011 the EPO introduced the EPO electronic Mailbox which has grown in use. Now, 99% of EPO correspondence is sent electronically and postal service delays associated with physical letters are insignificant.  Therefore from 1 November 2023, the date printed on an electronic communication is the date it is assumed to be received, and any deadlines for responding to the communication are calculated from this date. For example if the EPO sent a Notice of Intention to Grant on or after the 1 November 2023, then the deadline to reply by would be the date printed on the communication + 4 months.

What safeguards are in place instead of the 10 day rule?

If the recipient alleges a communication was never received, the EPO must prove otherwise. If the EPO is unable to do this then it must send a new communication with a new date, which resets any deadlines using the date of the new communication.

If the recipient alleges that the communication was received after the date printed on the communication then one of two scenarios could unfold:

  1. If the communication was delivered within 7 days of the date printed on the communication, no adjustment is made and the period for responding is calculated from the date printed on the communication.
  2. If the document was delivered 7 or more days after the date printed on the documents then it is considered exceptionally late and any deadlines are extended by the number of days difference between the date of the delivery and the date on the document, minus 7 days.

What action do I need to take?

There is no action that needs to be taken regarding this rule change – but you need to be aware that the additional 10 days to respond to EPO deadlines can no longer routinely be relied upon for communications sent from the EPO on or after 1 November 2023.

If you would like further information or advice on this, please contact your usual HGF representative.

Latest updates

Polymorphs: Clearing the Inventive Step Hurdle at the European Patent Office (EPO)

Polymorphic forms of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) can represent commercially valuable compound subject matter and can be critical to providing necessary drug product characteristics and performance. However, patenting polymorphs is …

Read article

IQPC Global US Exchange

HGF are proud ‘Silver Plus’ sponsors of the IQPC Global US Exchange, at the Austin Marriot South, Texas. The IQPC Global US Exchange will be held at the Austin Marriot …

Read article

Update on the Precision Breeding Act 2023: details emerge of the new simplified regulatory pathway for gene edited plant and animal derived food and feed products

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 could come into force as early as spring 2025. It empowers the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to create a new simplified regulatory pathway …

Read article

Court of Appeal Decision Upholds Invalidity of Patent Due to Amendment Identifying Embodiment as Outside the Scope of the Claims

In a case that highlights the challenges arising due to post-grant amendments, and in particular interpretation of the claims in view of the description, the Court of Appeal in Ensygnia …

Read article

UPC Court of Appeal clarifies approach for interpreting claims with “obvious” errors

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. [UPC_CoA_402/2024] –Court of Appeal of the UPC (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé, Enderlin, Hedberg) – 20 December 2024 Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Amgen Technology …

Read article

IP Ingredients: Winter Case Law Review 2024

As the nights draw in and the frenzy to finish everything off before the holiday season reaches its peak, it’s time to take a break, grab your favourite hot beverage …

Read article