S. Zustellung
Overview
S. Zustellung
1.Zustellungsarten
Art. 119 EPÜ sowie R. 125 bis 130 EPÜ regeln detailliert die Zustellung. Zugestellt werden kann durch die Post, durch Übergabe, öffentliche Bekanntgabe und die in R. 127 EPÜ geregelte Zustellung durch Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Nachrichtenübermittlung. Mehrere Änderungen der Ausführungsordnung in Bezug auf die Zustellung und den Einsatz elektronischer Hilfsmittel in Verfahren vor dem EPA traten am 1. April 2015 in Kraft (s. Beschluss des Verwaltungsrats CA/D 6/14, ABl. 2015, A17). Insbesondere wurden Änderungen der R. 125 EPÜ, R. 126 EPÜ, R. 127 EPÜ und R. 129 EPÜ EPÜ beschlossen, die nachstehend bei den Zustellungsarten erläutert werden. Die geänderte R. 125 (1) EPÜ stellt klar, welche Schriftstücke zuzustellen sind. Sie schafft lediglich eine ausdrückliche Rechtsgrundlage für die bestehende Praxis des Amts, Bescheide und Mitteilungen, durch die keine Frist in Lauf gesetzt wird, nicht förmlich zuzustellen (s. Mitteilung des EPA vom 30. März 2015, ABl. 2015, A36). R. 126 (1) EPÜ wurde durch den Beschluss des Verwaltungsrats CA/D 2/19 (ABl. 2019, A31) weiter geändert, um das Erfordernis der Zustellung mit Rückschein abzuschaffen.
In Bezug auf die elektronische Nachrichtenübermittlung wurde mit dem Beschluss des Präsidenten des EPA vom 4. Juli 2012 (ABl. 2012, 486) ein Pilotprojekt initiiert, in dessen Rahmen das EPA nach und nach neue technische Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Übermittlung von Patentanmeldungen, sonstigen Unterlagen, Mitteilungen und anderen Informationen bereitstellt. Das Pilotprojekt wurde durch Beschluss des Präsidenten des EPA vom 11. März 2015 (ABl. 2015, A28) verlängert. Im Einklang mit Art. 12 dieses Beschlusses des Präsidenten des EPA und mit dem Beschluss des Vizepräsidenten Generaldirektion Rechtsfragen und internationale Angelegenheiten (Generaldirektion 5) des EPA vom 23. Juli 2020 (ABl. 2020, A89) hat das EPA ein Pilotprojekt gestartet, in dessen Rahmen Prüfungsabteilungen wichtige Informationen über mündliche Verhandlungen per E-Mail zustellen können. Dieser Beschluss trat am 1. September 2020 in Kraft, und das Pilotprojekt lief bis 31. August 2021.
Ab 1. Juni 2021 begannen die Beschwerdekammern, Unterlagen im Beschwerdeverfahren elektronisch über die EPA-Mailbox zuzustellen (Mitteilung des Präsidenten der Beschwerdekammern vom 13. April 2021 über die Ausweitung der elektronischen Zustellung über die EPA-Mailbox auf das Beschwerdeverfahren; ABl. 2021, A37).
- T 1529/20
Zusammenfassung
In T 1529/20 the appellant (proprietor) submitted that they had never received the decision of the opposition division revoking their patent and that they had only become aware of it and, more generally, of the opposition proceedings, through an email from a formalities officer of the EPO.
The board explained that with the abolition of advices of delivery for notification of decisions by registered letter (see OJ 2019, A31), it was the practice of the EPO at the time to enclose an acknowledgement of receipt (Form 2936) with notifications by registered letter of decisions incurring a period for appeal and summonses. Addressees were requested to date and sign the form and return it immediately, as evidence of receipt (see OJ 2019, A57).
The board established that the present file did not contain a confirmation of receipt of the decision of the opposition division from the appellant. Since the EPO could not prove whether the registered letter had reached the appellant, as required by the provisions of R. 126(2) EPC in force at the relevant time, it had to be accepted that the legal fiction of deemed notification did not apply and the appellant became aware of the appealed decision for the first time with the email from the formalities officer. This date was therefore the date of notification of the decision. Thus, the appeal was timely filed.
With regard to the right to be heard, the board held that, as argued by the appellant, the missing opportunity to present their arguments during the opposition proceedings amounted to a substantial procedural violation (Art. 113(1) EPC).
The board observed that, even in view of the notice of the EPO concerning implementation of amended R. 126(1) EPC (OJ 2019, A57) – which did not require to enclose an acknowledgement of receipt (Form 2936) with the communication of the notice of opposition – the requirements of Art. 113 EPC had to be complied with. Before a negative decision revoking a patent was issued, it had to be established that the patent proprietor had been duly informed about the initiation of opposition proceedings. The board explained that the notice of the EPO merely determined the format of notifications. However, the provisions of R. 126(2) EPC remained unaffected. R. 126(2) EPC defined a rebuttable fiction of notification, which, in case of dispute, had to be verified. The burden of proof lied with the EPO.
The board agreed with the appellant that a party submitting that something had not happened, i.e. that a communication had not been received, was in difficulties in trying to prove a negative (negativa non sunt probanda, see also T 2037/18, R 15/11, R 4/17). The filing of cogent evidence showing that a letter was not received was hardly ever possible (see also J 9/05). Therefore, the respondent's arguments that the appellant allegedly had the duty to register mail incoming at their premises but failed to provide an excerpt of such register was not pertinent, since there was no trace in the file that the EPO discharged its burden of proving delivery. Under such circumstances, the appellant did not have to bear the risks normally falling in their sphere of responsibility (T 1535/10), so that they have to be given the benefit of the doubt (J 9/05).
According to the board, in the present case legal certainty and the protection of the right to be heard would have required that the opposition division had established, by any available means, the fact and date of delivery of the communication of the notice of opposition.
The patent proprietor could decide not to react to the notice of opposition. Nevertheless, the communication under R. 79(1) EPC was not a mere formality. Rather, it had the function of allowing the patent proprietor to both contribute to the opposition division's appreciation of the facts and to defend their interests. Since the initial act of (non-)notification of the notice of opposition was flawed, the entire opposition proceedings including the decision of the opposition division was flawed.
Thus, the board set aside the appealed decision and remitted the case to the opposition division for further prosecution. The appeal fee was reimbursed.