Guidelines for Examination:PART E: CHAPTER VIII TIME LIMITS, LOSS OF RIGHTS, FURTHER AND ACCELERATED PROCESSING AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF..., 1. Time limits and loss of rights resulting from failure to respond within a time limit, 1.2 Duration of the time limits to be determined by the EPO on the basis of EPC provisions

Guidelines for Examination
PART E
CHAPTER VIII TIME LIMITS, LOSS OF RIGHTS, FURTHER AND ACCELERATED PROCESSING AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF...
1. Time limits and loss of rights resulting from failure to respond within a time limit
1.2 Duration of the time limits to be determined by the EPO on the basis of EPC provisions

HOME

E / D / F


PART E
CHAPTER VIII TIME LIMITS, LOSS OF RIGHTS, FURTHER AND ACCELERATED PROCESSING AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF...
1. Time limits and loss of rights resulting from failure to respond within a time limit

1.1 Determination of time limits

1.3 Time limits which may be freely determined

1.2	Duration of the time limits to be determined by the EPO on the basis of EPC provisions

The length of such periods should be based, in principle, on the amount of work which is likely to be required to perform the operation in question. However, in order to facilitate the work of parties and the EPO it has been decided, as a general rule, to adopt a uniform practice with respect to time limits. This practice is at present as follows:

(i)	if deficiencies to be corrected are merely formal or merely of a minor character; if simple acts only are requested, e.g. under Rule 59 the subsequent filing of documents referred to by a party; or if observations are required on amendments which are merely of a minor character - two months;

(ii)	communications from an Examining or Opposition Division raising matters of substance - four months.

A longer time limit of up to six months should be set only in the exceptional cases where it is clear that in the circumstances a four-month time limit cannot be adhered to. Each case must be judged on its individual merits and it is difficult to give general guidance, but a six-month time limit might be justified if for example the subject-matter of the application or patent or the objections raised are exceptionally complicated. Where the applicant is invited to submit the statement provided for in Art. 96(1), a six-month time limit running from the publication of the search report is appropriate.

Art. 96(1)

Some Rules stipulate a minimum time limit, e.g. Rule 1(3) (translation of a document to be used in evidence) "not less than one month". Where this is so, the stipulated minimum period takes the place of the minimum period of two months referred to in Rule 84.

Rule 1(3)