European Patent Office Rule Changes

European Patent Office Rule Changes In force from 1 April 2010 Executive summary

April 2010 sees the introduction of significant rule changes at the EPO. The changes and our recommendations, in terms of best practice, are discussed in detail overleaf. The headline rule changes are as follows: •

Shortened deadline for filing Divisional applications. The new EPO rules will generally require that a divisional application be filed within 2 years from the Examining Division's first communication ("voluntary divisionals") on any related application. The only exception to this principle comes where the EPO has raised a unity objection on an application, in which case a divisional application may be filed within 2 years from a specific lack of unity objection being raised for the first time ("mandatory divisionals").

•

September 2010 divisional deadline for many pending cases. A deadline of 30 September 2010 applies for filing divisional applications from pending European patent applications which received a first European office action before 30 September 2008. This date may mark the final opportunity to file any divisional applications from pending applications.

•

Earlier substantive examination. Applicants will need to respond much sooner to the EPO on substantive matters than at present. For PCT-based cases, if the EPO is the ISA a response to the ISR will be generally required within 2 months of European regional phase entry. Choice of the international search authority, where possible, should be considered carefully.

•

More restricted opportunity to amend. The new rules remove one opportunity for the applicant to make voluntary amendments. The only chance to make amendments not directed to objections in an examination report will be before examination commences.

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

1

New European Patent Office Rules In force from 1 April 2010

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced a number of rule changes that will come into effect in April 2010, some of which have, potentially, a very significant effect on the progress of European patent applications. Examination Process Current EPO processes on regional phase entry In order to understand these changes it is helpful to understand the current processes at the EPO when international applications enter the European regional phase. Shortly after entry to the European regional phase the EPO issues a communication (the "Rule 161 Communication") inviting the Applicant to amend the claims of the application, giving a chance to amend the claims before they proceed to search and examination. There is no requirement to make any amendments or file any response. If the International Search Report was compiled by the EPO the application then proceeds to examination and the next communication will be the first examination report. If the claims were not substantially amended the first examination report will usually be the same as the Written Opinion. If the International Search Report was compiled by an International Searching Authority (ISA) other than the EPO then, after the Rule 161 communication, a Supplementary Search Report is compiled based on the claims on file after any amendments by the Applicant. There is no requirement to respond to the Supplementary Search Report and after some formalities the Application proceeds to examination based on the searched claims. From April 2010 - ISA not the EPO and a supplementary search is carried out by the EPO From April 2010, it will be mandatory to respond to the examination report which will accompany the Supplementary Search Report. The deadline will be about 3 months after the Report is issued and will coincide with the requirement for the Applicant to indicate they wish the application to proceed to examination. The Applicant must therefore either withdraw the application in light of the Supplementary Search Report (and thereby obtain a refund of the European examination fee), or file a substantive response to all objections raised in the Search Report. Typically the Supplementary Search Report is issued about a year after entering the Regional Phase and so the Applicant will have to attend to substantive examination of the application within a little over a year from Regional Phase entry. The requirement to respond on substantive issues to the EPO will thus be substantially earlier than at present. From April 2010 - EPO as ISA Where the EPO compiled the International Search Report it will become mandatory to respond to all objections raised in the Written Opinion when responding to the Rule 161 communication. This Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

2

Communication is issued about a month after entry to the Regional Phase, and carries a deadline of one month. It will therefore be necessary to attend to the objections raised in the Written Opinion within about 2 months of entry to the Regional Phase. In view of these short deadlines it will be beneficial to consider the Written Opinion carefully before entering the Regional Phase, and to start preparing a response to the Written Opinion as soon as possible. Although the response will not be examined immediately, this new process will substantially speed up processing, and it can be expected that if the response to the Written Opinion is not substantive, the EPO will rapidly call oral proceedings. It will therefore be difficult to keep applications pending for long periods without substantively advancing the case towards grant. From April 2010 – direct European Applications European Search Reports already include a preliminary examination report, but there is currently no requirement to respond. From April 2010 it will be mandatory to file a response to any objections raised. The deadline for filing this response will be the same as the deadline for requesting examination (6 months from publication of the search report, so typically around 2 years from the earliest priority date). Divisional applications Currently a divisional application can be filed at any time during the lifetime of an application. A divisional application may also be filed from a pending divisional application. Divisional applications are often filed ahead of EPO oral proceedings, to keep an application pending in case of a negative outcome at the hearing. From April 2010 there will be restrictions on the timing of filing of divisional applications. The aim is to prevent Applicants from filing an endless chain of divisional applications throughout the lifetime of a patent, as is currently possible. There will be two new deadlines for filing divisional applications. "Voluntary Divisionals" It will be possible to file a divisional application, at the Applicant's volition, within two years of the earliest EPO Examining Division Communication (in practice, the first examination report). There are no restrictions on the subject matter of such a divisional (other than conventional "added matter" rules, for example). "Enforced Divisionals" There will be a further deadline of two years from the date on which the EPO Examining Division first raises a particular unity of invention objection. Where such an objection is raised, it is not possible to pursue the second (or further) invention in the main application, and so a divisional application must be filed within this deadline to pursue the other invention. Note that, as at present, a parent application will need to be pending to allow the filing of a divisional application.

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

3

Care will have to be taken in the prosecution of applications with multiple inventions because once the Voluntary Divisional deadline has passed, further divisionals are only possible if a unity of invention objection is received. However, it may not always be possible to provoke such an objection if the subsequent inventions are disclosed only in the description and were not searched. By careful prosecution it may be possible to secure protection for multiple different inventions. Consider a parent application which discloses three inventions, A, B and C. It claims only invention A. Two years from the first EPO communication on the parent case, a divisional application is filed claiming B and C. If this provokes a unity objection then, in response to that unity objection, the applicant can amend the first divisional application to claim subject matter B. A divisional application may then be filed two years later to subject matter C. In this scenario, a divisional to invention C will be filed four years from the first EPO communication. To apply this approach it will be important to ensure that the parent application only claims one invention, even if it discloses more than one invention, such that no unity objection is made. It is therefore vital that consideration be given to the form of the claims before entry to the European Regional Phase and, if necessary, suitable amendments are made to the claims to ensure there is no subsequent loss of protection. Transitional provisions The transitional provisions state that if the time limits provided for in the amended rules have expired before 1 April 2010, a divisional application may still be filed within six months of that date. If they are still running on 1 April 2010, they will continue to do so for not less than six months. Thus, for applications that received a first EPO Examination Division communication before 30 September 2008, there is a deadline of 30 September 2010 to file a divisional. It will be very important to review pending applications that are now two years after the date of the first EPO communication to decide whether the filing of a divisional application is needed. Amendment Currently, the applicant can amend the claims as of right after the issuance of the search report, and also after the first office action. From April 2010 voluntary amendments are possible as of right only when responding to the supplementary search opinion, or the written opinion of the international searching authority. After the first communication from the Examining division no amendment will be allowable without permission from the EPO. The new rules remove one opportunity for the applicant to make voluntary amendments, namely amendments after issuance of the first office action. Basis for amendment The EPO has also introduced a rule requiring the applicant to specifically identify amendments that are made and indicate basis for them in the application as filed. This is done routinely by European patent attorneys in communicating with the EPO, but it is always helpful to receive information from foreign associates where amendments have been suggested. Generally, we would advise that a foreign associate provides suitable basis for amendments at the time instructions are being provided, to ensure maximum efficiency, and to reduce duplication of effort and cost for the client. Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

4

Multiple independent claims It is common to draft US patent applications with multiple independent claims. The EPO however only allows a single independent claim in each category, such as product or process claims, with only limited exceptions. Currently this issue is raised during examination, but from 2010 compliance with this requirement will be mandatory before the search is carried out. If there is more than one claim per category, the EPO will invite the applicant to indicate which independent claim (one per category) should be searched. If no response is made only the first independent claim in each category will be searched. Incomplete search If the EPO considers that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search on the basis of some or all of the subject matter claimed, it will in future invite the applicant to file a statement indicating the subject matter to be searched. This objection is generally raised where there are so many claims, or so many possibilities within a claim, that it becomes unduly burdensome to determine the matter for which protection is sought. Currently the EPO simply issues a declaration that no meaningful search can be performed or issue a partial search report. The applicant now has an opportunity to respond to the EPO and specifically identify claims which it wishes to pursue. Action points The rule changes, although not effective for some time, do require some action on behalf of applicants for European patent applications. 1 The deadline of 30 September 2010 should be noted for filing of divisional applications relating to pending European patent applications which are more than two years past the first official communication deadline. Pending applications should also be reviewed to determine if a divisional is necessary. Clients with multiple pending applications will need to budget for filing of divisionals. 2 Where there are multiple independent inventions, only claim one invention in the parent application, to allow a unity objection to be provoked at a later stage if desired, thereby extending the time for filing a divisional application. 3 Review where PCT applications are searched in the international phase, if possible, as the choice of the international searching authority will impact the timing of filing a response at the EPO on entry into the European regional phase, and potentially also the speed at which an application is processed. Filling of an international application with the EPO will require a substantive response to be filed approximately two months after European regional phase entry. 4 In light of the more rapid requirements for substantive comments to be made before the EPO, it may be wise to consider the content of the written opinion and search report during the international phase.

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

5

5 Substantive costs will be incurred at an earlier stage in European prosecution. Clients should be made aware of this. Further information For further information please contact Robert Stephen or Kevin Cordina at the contact details below. We are always happy to advise on particular cases or portfolios and would be delighted to offer a presentation to your company to explain and discuss these changes.

[email protected] [email protected]

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

6

EPO rule changes: official text Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 3/09) THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANISATION, Having regard to the European Patent Convention (EPC), and in particular Article 33(1)(c) thereof, On a proposal from the President of the European Patent Office, Having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Patent Law, Taking account also of Article 1, point 3, of decision CA/D 2/09 concerning divisional applications HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Implementing Regulations to the EPC shall be amended as follows: 1. The following new Rule 62a shall be inserted in Part IV, Chapter II: "Rule 62a Applications containing a plurality of independent claims (1) If the European Patent Office considers that the claims as filed do not comply with Rule 43, paragraph 2, it shall invite the applicant to indicate, within a period of two months, the claims complying with Rule 43, paragraph 2, on the basis of which the search is to be carried out. If the applicant fails to provide such an indication in due time, the search shall be carried out on the basis of the first claim in each category. (2) The Examining Division shall invite the applicant to restrict the claims to the subject-matter searched unless it finds that the objection under paragraph 1 was not justified." 2. Rule 63 shall be amended to read as follows: "Rule 63 Incomplete search (1) If the European Patent Office considers that the European patent application fails to such an extent to comply with this Convention that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed, it shall invite the applicant to file, within a period of two months, a statement indicating the subject-matter to be searched. (2) If the statement under paragraph 1 is not filed in due time, or if it is not sufficient to overcome the deficiency noted under paragraph 1, the European Patent Office shall either issue a reasoned Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

7

declaration stating that the European patent application fails to such an extent to comply with this Convention that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed or, as far as is practicable, draw up a partial search report. The reasoned declaration or the partial search report shall be considered, for the purposes of subsequent proceedings, as the European search report. (3) When a partial search report has been drawn up, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to restrict the claims to the subject-matter searched unless it finds that the objection under paragraph 1 was not justified. " 3. Rule 64, paragraph 1, shall be amended to read as follows: "(1) If the European Patent Office considers that the European patent application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention, it shall draw up a partial search report on those parts of the application which relate to the invention, or the group of inventions within the meaning of Article 82, first mentioned in the claims. It shall inform the applicant that, for the European search report to cover the other inventions, a further search fee must be paid, in respect of each invention involved, within a period of two months. The European search report shall be drawn up for the parts of the application relating to inventions in respect of which search fees have been paid." 4. Rule 69 shall be amended to read as follows: "Rule 69 Information about publication (1) The European Patent Office shall inform the applicant of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report and shall draw his attention to Rule 70, paragraph 1, Article 94, paragraph 2, and Rule 70a, paragraph 1. (2) If a date of publication is specified in the communication under paragraph 1 which is later than the actual date of publication, that later date shall be the decisive date as regards the periods referred to in Rule 70, paragraph 1, and Rule 70a, paragraph 1, unless the error is obvious. " 5. The following new Rule 70a shall be inserted in Part IV, Chapter IV: "Rule 70a Response to the extended European search report (1) In the opinion accompanying the European search report the European Patent Office shall give the applicant the opportunity to comment on the extended European search report and, where appropriate, invite him to correct any deficiencies noted in the opinion accompanying the European search report and to amend the description, claims and drawings within the period referred to in Rule 70, paragraph 1. (2) In the case referred to in Rule 70, paragraph 2, or if a supplementary European search report is drawn up on a Euro-PCT-application, the European Patent Office shall give the applicant the opportunity to comment on the extended European search report and, where appropriate, invite him to correct any deficiencies noted in the opinion accompanying the European search report and to amend Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

8

the description, claims and drawings within the period specified for indicating whether he wishes to proceed further with the application. (3) If the applicant neither complies with nor comments on an invitation in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn." 6. Rule 135, paragraph 2, shall be amended to read as follows: "(2) Further processing shall be ruled out in respect of the periods referred to in Article 121, paragraph 4, and of the periods under Rule 6, paragraph 1, Rule 16, paragraph 1(a), Rule 31, paragraph 2, Rule 36, paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 2, Rule 40, paragraph 3, Rule 51, paragraphs 2 to 5, Rule 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, Rules 55, 56, 58, 59, 62a, 63, 64 and Rule 112, paragraph 2." 7. Rule 137 shall be amended to read as follows: "Rule 137 Amendment of the European patent application (1) Before receiving the European search report, the applicant may not amend the description, claims or drawings of a European patent application unless otherwise provided. (2) Together with any comments, corrections or amendments made in response to communications by the European Patent Office under Rule 70a, paragraph 1 or 2, or Rule 161, paragraph 1, the applicant may amend the description, claims and drawings of his own volition. (3) No further amendment may be made without the consent of the Examining Division. (4) When filing any amendments referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3, the applicant shall identify them and indicate the basis for them in the application as filed. If the Examining Division notes a failure to meet either requirement, it may request the correction of this deficiency within a period of one month. (5) Amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept. Nor may they relate to subject-matter not searched in accordance with Rule 62a or Rule 63." 8. Rule 161 shall be amended to read as follows: "Rule 161 Amendment of the application (1) If the European Patent Office has acted as the International Searching Authority and, where a demand under Article 31 PCT was filed, also as the International Preliminary Examining Authority for a Euro-PCT application, it shall give the applicant the opportunity to comment on the written opinion of the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examination Report and, where appropriate, invite him to correct any deficiencies noted in the written opinion or in the International Preliminary Examination Report and to amend the description, claims and drawings within a period of one month from the respective communication. If the applicant does not comply with or comment on an invitation in accordance with the first sentence, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn. Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

9

(2) Where the European Patent Office draws up a supplementary European search report on a EuroPCT application, the application may be amended once within a period of one month from a communication informing the applicant accordingly. The application as amended shall serve as the basis for the supplementary European search." Article 2 (1) The provisions mentioned in Article 1 of this decision shall enter into force on 1 April 2010. (2) New Rule 62a, Rule 63 as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2, of this decision, new Rule 70a and Rule 137 as amended by Article 1, paragraph 7, of this decision shall apply to European patent applications for which the European search report or the supplementary European search report is drawn up on or after 1 April 2010. (3) Rule 161 as amended by Article 1, paragraph 8, of this decision shall apply to European patent applications where a communication under current Rule 161 has not been issued before 1 April 2010. Done at Munich, 25 March 2009

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

10

Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 2/09) THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT ORGANISATION, Considering that amendments to Rules 36, 57 and 135 EPC are necessary and useful in the light of recent developments, Having regard to the European Patent Convention (EPC), and in particular Article 33(1)(c) thereof, On a proposal from the President of the European Patent Office, Having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Patent Law, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 The Implementing Regulations to the EPC shall be amended as follows: 1. Rule 36 (1) and (2) shall be amended to read as follows: "(1) The applicant may file a divisional application relating to any pending earlier European patent application, provided that: (a) the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from the Examining Division's first communication in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued, or (b) the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of twenty-four months from any communication in which the Examining Division has objected that the earlier application does not meet the requirements of Article 82, provided it was raising that specific objection for the first time. (2) A divisional application shall be filed in the language of the proceedings for the earlier application. If the latter was not in an official language of the European Patent Office, the divisional application may be filed in the language of the earlier application; a translation into the language of the proceedings for the earlier application shall then be filed within two months of the filing of the divisional application. The divisional application shall be filed with the European Patent Office in Munich, The Hague or Berlin." 2. Rule 57(a) shall be amended to read as follows: "(a) a translation of the application required under Article 14, paragraph 2, under Rule 36, paragraph 2, second sentence, or under Rule 40, paragraph 3, second sentence, has been filed in due time;" 3. Rule 135(2) shall be amended to read as follows: "(2) Further processing shall be ruled out in respect of the periods referred to in Article 121, paragraph 4, and of the periods under Rule 6, paragraph 1, Rule 16, paragraph 1(a), Rule 31, paragraph 2, Rule Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

11

36, paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 2, Rule 40, paragraph 3, Rule 51, paragraphs 2 to 5, Rule 52, paragraphs 2 and 3, Rules 55, 56, 58, 59, 64 and Rule 112, paragraph 2." Article 2 1. This decision shall enter into force on 1 April 2010. 2.Rule 36(1) and (2), as amended by this decision, shall apply to divisional applications filed on or after that date. Article 3 The following transitional provisions shall apply to the amended provisions. If the time limits provided for in amended Rule 36(1) EPC have expired before 1 April 2010, a divisional application may still be filed within six months of that date. If they are still running on 1 April 2010, they will continue to do so for not less than six months. Amended Rule 135(2) EPC shall apply to these transitional periods. Done at Munich, 25 March 2009

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

12

Notice from the European Patent Office dated 20 August 2009 concerning amended Rule 36(1) and (2) EPC (European divisional applications) and consequential amendments to Rules 57(a) and 135(2) EPC By decision of 25 March 2009 1 , the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation amended Rule 36(1) and (2) EPC as to the requirements for filing European divisional applications and the language in which they are to be filed. Consequential amendments were necessary, first to Rule 57(a) EPC, in order to add the filing of the translation of a divisional application to the list of formal requirements to be examined after the application has been accorded a date of filing; and second, to Rule 135(2) EPC, in order to exclude the periods introduced for the filing of divisional applications from further processing. The present notice gives more information about these amendments and the transitional provisions applicable until the revised Guidelines for Examination in the EPO become available. I. Filing requirements for divisional applications With regard to when a divisional application can be filed, there are two requirements which must be met: (i) the application to be divided (the "parent" application on which the divisional is based) must be pending, and (ii) at least one of the two periods mentioned below must not yet have expired: (a) the period for voluntary division under Rule 36(1)(a) EPC or (b) the period for mandatory division under Rule 36(1)(b) EPC, where applicable. The term "earlier application" in Rule 36(1) EPC refers to the immediate parent application on which the divisional application is based. This term is distinct from the term "earliest application" also appearing in Rule 36(1) EPC, although, in the case of a first-generation divisional application (where the immediate parent is not itself a divisional), they both refer to the same application. (a) Voluntary division Amended Rule 36(1)(a) EPC provides that a divisional application may be filed on the basis of a pending earlier application before the expiry of a time limit of 24 months from the examining division's first communication in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued. The "examining division's first communication" is a communication under Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1), (2) EPC or, where appropriate, Rule 71(3) EPC. The notification of the search opinion does not cause this 24-month period to start because the Examining Division is not yet responsible for the application. However, in cases where the applicant has waived his right to receive the communication according to Rule 70(2) EPC, then no search opinion is issued, but rather a communication according to Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1), (2) EPC. Notification of this communication does cause the 24-month period to start. The earlier (parent) application on which the divisional is to be based has to be pending at the time the divisional application is filed. If it lapses or is withdrawn before the first communication relating to it is Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

13

sent in examination proceedings, then a divisional application may no longer be filed. The same applies if the earlier (parent) application ceases to be pending after the notification of the first communication referred to above, but before expiry of the 24-month period. In the case of a sequence of European divisional applications, the 24-month time limit is to be calculated from the date on which the Examining Division's first communication was issued for the earliest application in the sequence, e.g. the grandparent application. (b) Mandatory division Under new Rule 36(1)(b) EPC a divisional application may be filed on the basis of a pending earlier application before the expiry of a time limit of 24 months from any communication in which the examining division raises a non-unity objection according to Article 82 EPC, with the proviso that this finding of lack of unity is raised for the first time in the said communication. A non-unity objection is typically raised in the examining division's first communication pursuant to Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1), (2) EPC or, if already raised at the search stage, maintained therein. The confirmation of a finding of lack of unity in a subsequent communication from the examining division does not cause the period for mandatory division to start again. A new time limit of 24 months can only be triggered by a communication from the examining division in which a new, different non-unity objection is raised. The notification of a summons to oral proceedings or of the minutes of a telephone call or a personal interview, but also the date of oral proceedings or of a telephone call or a personal interview (depending on whether the relevant minutes are notified at a later date or immediately), can also qualify as a trigger for the filing of a mandatory divisional application, provided that the finding of lack of unity is raised for the first time on the occasion in question. In contrast, a communication under new Rule 137(5) EPC cannot cause the period for mandatory division to start, as the relevant objection does not qualify as an objection under Article 82 EPC. Further, the notification of a search opinion raising an objection of a lack of unity of invention does not cause the period for mandatory division to start according to Rule 36(1)(b) EPC, because the examining division is not yet responsible for the application. However, in cases where the applicant has waived his right to receive the communication according to Rule 70(2) EPC, then no search opinion is issued, but rather a communication according to Article 94(3) and Rule 71(1), (2) EPC. Notification of this communication, where it raises an objection of a lack of unity, does cause the 24month period for mandatory division to start. For first-generation divisional applications (where the earlier application on which the divisional is based is not itself a divisional), it is not possible for the period for mandatory division to expire earlier than the period for voluntary division. In most cases the two periods will expire at the same time, because the unity objection is typically raised in a first communication from the examining division or, if already raised at the search stage, maintained therein. (c) General matters The ten-day rule as provided for in Rule 126(2) EPC applies for the purposes of calculating the 24month time limit for both voluntary and mandatory divisional applications.

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

14

II. Language requirements According to Rule 36(2) EPC as amended, a divisional application must be filed in the language of the proceedings of the earlier (parent) application. If the latter was not in an official language of the European Patent Office, the divisional application may be filed in the language of the earlier application. A translation into the language of the proceedings for the earlier application must then be filed within two months of the filing of the divisional application. Due filing of the translation is examined pursuant to Rule 57(a) EPC. III. Means of redress The legal consequence of non-compliance with the 24-month time limit is that the application cannot be treated as a European divisional application. Taking into account the considerable length of the time limits involved, the Administrative Council decided to exclude them from further processing by amending Rule 135(2) EPC accordingly. Reestablishment of rights under Article 122 and Rule 136 (1), (2) EPC, however, remains available in order to remedy the failure to observe either 24-month time limit. IV. Transitional provisions The amended version of Rule 36 EPC will apply only to European divisional applications filed after its entry into force, i.e. on or after 1 April 2010. If the time limits provided for in amended Rule 36(1) EPC have expired before 1 April 2010, a divisional application may still be filed within six months of that date, i.e. until 1 October 2010. If the relevant time limits are still running on 1 April 2010, they will continue to do so for not less than six months. In other words, for any applications pending on 1 April 2010 and on which a first communication from the examining division has been issued or a non-unity objection has been (subsequently) raised, so that the time limits are still running on that date, the time limit will not expire before 1 October 2010.

Olswang LLP © 2009 | www.olswang.com

15

London Olswang LLP 90 High Holborn London WC1V 6XX T +44 (0) 20 7067 3000 F +44 (0) 20 7067 3999

3910340-1

Thames Valley Olswang LLP Apex Plaza, Forbury Road Reading RG1 1AX T +44 (0) 20 7067 3000 F +44 (0) 20 7071 7499

Berlin Olswang LLP Potsdamer Platz 1 D-10785 Berlin T +49 (0) 30 700171-100 F +49 (0) 30 700171-900

Brussels Olswang LLP Avenue Louise 326 bte 26 Louizalaan 326 bus 26 B-1050 Bruxelles/Brussel T +32 2 647 4772 F +32 2 644 2165