Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 NOVEMBER 2023

Change in EPO practice: Calculating patent deadlines

Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Explore more from Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers

This change will bring EPO practice into line with a number of other IP offices, including IP Australia.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Serena White
Serena White
Charles Tansey
Charles Tansey
Author LinkedIn connections

Introduction

From 1 November 2023, the way of calculating deadlines set by letters from the EPO is changing.1

Letters dated 1 November 2023 and after are deemed to have been received on the date of the letter and relevant deadlines will be calculated on this basis.

The practical effect of this change means that various response periods will be slightly shorter. It will, however, bring practice into line with a number of other IP offices including IP Australia.

How are deadlines calculated based on a letter dated on or after 1 November 2023?

The response deadline set by a letter from the EPO dated 1 November 2023 or after will be calculated by adding the period for responding to the date on the letter.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Benchmarking “not Too Closely” – Is It Still Too Close?

The Full Federal Court has clarified the test for copyright infringement in artistic works on product packaging, rejecting a generalised 'look and feel' approach in favour of detailed side-by-side comparisons. In a dispute between Aldi and Hampden Holdings over baby snack packaging, the Court found that five of Aldi's eleven MAMIA designs infringed copyright, despite Aldi's deliberate strategy to stay 'not too close' to its competitor's benchmark designs.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Piper Alderman
Piper Alderman
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Updates To Malaysia’s Proposed Patent Linkage Framework

Malaysia is drafting its first patent linkage framework for pharmaceutical products, scheduled for implementation on 1 May 2027 following CPTPP ratification. The National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency has released draft guidelines establishing an administrative connection between drug registration and patent status, introducing notification requirements, suspension periods, and four application categories that will fundamentally reshape how innovators and generic manufacturers navigate market entry.
MalaysiaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

AI Patent Consultation: What Innovators Need To Know

Singapore's Ministry of Law and IPOS have launched a public consultation examining how the patent system should adapt to AI-assisted innovation, focusing on two critical questions: what level of human contribution qualifies for inventorship when AI participates in the inventive process, and how AI-generated technical disclosures should be treated as prior art. The consultation explores scenarios from AI-assisted drug discovery and raises significant implications for businesses developing RAG systems, AI age
SingaporeIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Article

Australia | Proposed Tranche 2 Privacy Act Reforms: Exposure Draft And Consultation Paper Released

The Australian Government has released an exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026, proposing the most substantial reforms to the Privacy Act 1988 in recent times. These changes introduce a fair and reasonable test for data handling, enhanced consent requirements, expanded breach notification obligations, and new rights including data erasure for large digital platforms.
AustraliaPrivacy
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers