If the European Patent Office issues a promise or statement on how to act in a given area, the principle of legitimate expectations requires that promise or statement to be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so. Users and representatives cannot be expected to question, without any apparent reason, statements on the extension of time limits which are made in publications under Rule 134(4) EPC. Even in the absence of a general dislocation in the delivery or transmission of mail, they can rely on such publications without suffering any disadvantages (points 1.12.-1.20 of the Reasons).

The established approach of applying the due-care criterion to the question of removal of the cause of noncompliance under Rule 136 EPC leads to an additional admissibility requirement, by expanding the scope of the substantive due-care criterion, which has no basis in the EPC. Removal of the cause of non-compliance is a question of fact which occurs on the date on which the person responsible for the application or patent actually became aware of an error (actual knowledge), rather than when this person ought to have noticed the error (presumption of knowledge). Pursuant to Article 122(1) EPC, if failure to observe a time limit is due to an error of fact, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of a request for re-establishment of rights. The same applies if failure to observe a time limit is based on an error of law. Thus, the due-care criterion is to be assessed only in the context of the merits of the request and removal of the cause of non-compliance occurs when the responsible person actually became aware of the error of law.

Zusammenfassungen der Entscheidungen in der Verfahrensprache
Summaries of decisions in the language of the proceedings
Résumés des décisions dans la langue de procedure

In T 198/16 stellte die Kammer fest, dass die derzeitige Praxis, die Sorgfaltspflicht im Kontext des Wegfalls des Hindernisses mit einer Frist im Sinne von R. 136 (1) EPÜ anzuwenden, als Ausdehnung der Bedeutung der Sorgfaltspflicht aufgefasst werden könnte, weil dadurch der Umfang des maßgeblichen Kriteriums um die Funktion eines außergewöhnlichen vorläufigen Zulässigkeits-/Anwendbarkeitshindernisses erweitert wurde. Nach Auffassung der Kammer war diese Auslegung des "Wegfallkriteriums", die sich nicht auf den Gesetzestext stützen konnte, zweifelhaft. Die Kammer ließ die Frage der richtigen Auslegung offen.