Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 NOVEMBER 2023

Determining The Deadline For Requesting Re-Establishment At The EPO

J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Contributor
J A Kemp

J A Kemp

J A Kemp is one of the largest European patent and trade mark attorney firms, with offices in...

View firm profile
Explore more from J A Kemp

Re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC may be used to recover rights if a deadline is missed that directly results in loss of rights relating to a European patent application or granted patent.

United StatesIntellectual Property
Toby Hopkin
Toby Hopkin
Lizzie Davenport
Lizzie Davenport
John Leeming
John Leeming
Imogen Parry
Imogen Parry
Author LinkedIn connections

Re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC may be used to recover rights if a deadline is missed that directly results in loss of rights relating to a European patent application or granted patent. As set out in Article 122(1) EPC, the European Patent Office shall re-establish rights if the applicant or proprietor can demonstrate that they were unable to observe the missed time limit in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken. The deadline for requesting re-establishment of rights is provided in Rule 136(1) EPC which specifies that in most cases the deadline is the earliest of (i) two months from the so-called "removal of the cause of non-compliance" and (ii) one year from the expiry of the unobserved time limit.

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

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Patents And University Spin-outs: Protecting Academic Innovation

Universities drive innovation across medicine, AI, materials, and clean tech, but academic researchers face a critical challenge: the need to publish conflicts with patent protection requirements for confidentiality. Understanding how to navigate publication deadlines, filing strategies, and IP development can determine whether groundbreaking research becomes a valuable commercial asset or loses protection entirely.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Article

UK High Court Upholds Novartis’s Sacubitril Valsartan SPC: What Is The Relevant “product”?

The UK High Court has rejected a challenge to Novartis's supplementary protection certificate for sacubitril and valsartan, addressing a fundamental question about how the "product" protected by an SPC should be defined. The decision clarifies whether a specific co-crystal formulation or the broader combination of active ingredients constitutes the relevant product under the SPC Regulation.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Video

Navigating Freedom To Operate (FTO): Strategy, Searches And Risk Mitigation (Video)

This webinar explores the critical Freedom to Operate (FTO) process for life sciences companies, examining when FTO assessments are necessary and how to navigate the complex landscape of patent risks. From initial search strategies and cost considerations to evaluating potential infringement risks and implementing ongoing monitoring systems, the session provides practical guidance for managing intellectual property challenges in product development and commercialization.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp
Video

Emotional Perception, G1/19 And Software Inventions In The UK And EPO (Video)

This webinar examines how the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/19 and the UK Supreme Court's Emotional Perception judgment have reshaped patent examination practices at the EPO and UK IPO, with particular focus on recent appeal decisions and their implications for computer-implemented inventions. The session explores how these landmark rulings have intensified scrutiny of technical character requirements across claim scope and aligned UK practice more closely with EPO standards.
United StatesIntellectual Property
J A Kemp
J A Kemp