|
The ''restitutio in integrum'' or re-establishment of rights under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is a means of redress available to an applicant or patent proprietor who has failed to meet a time limit in spite of exercising "all due care required by the circumstances". The legal basis for this means of redress is provided in . If the request for ''restitutio in integrum'' is accepted, the applicant or patentee is re-established in its rights, as if the time limit had been duly met. According to decision G 1/86 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, other parties such as opponents are not barred from the ''restitutio in integrum'' by principle. For instance, if an opponent fails to file the statement of grounds for appeal in spite of all due care, after having duly filed the notice of appeal, ''restitutio'' remedies will be available to him or her.〔 (Decision G 1/86 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office )〕 == Legal basis and interpretation == The legal basis is provided in . Article 122(1) EPC reads: Therefore, one of the conditions for re-establishment of rights to be possible is that: :"the applicant must have been unable to observe a time limit vis-à-vis the EPO. ... () word "unable" implies an objective fact or obstacle preventing the required action."〔(Decision T 493/08 of 29 September 2009 ), Reasons 2.1.〕 In relation to the "all due care" criterion, "an isolated mistake in a normally satisfactory system is excusable."〔(Decision T 529/09 of 10 June 2010 ), Reasons 10.〕 An error may also be excusable if it resulted from exceptional circumstances.〔, "Re-establishment of rights", "Merit of request for re-establishment of rights", "General comments on due care"〕 If an applicant is represented by a professional representative, a request for re-establishment can only be allowed if the representative himself can show that he has taken all the "due care required by the circumstances" as well.〔(Decision J 5/80 of 7 July 1981 ), OJ 1981, 343, Headnote I, Reasons for the Decision, 4.〕 Furthermore, if an applicant is represented both by a professional representative and a non-authorised representative, such as a non-European domestic representative, "the duty of due care applies to both of them."〔(Decision J 4/07 of 7 July 2008 ), Reasons for the Decision, 3.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Restitutio in integrum under the European Patent Convention」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|