S. Significations
Overview
S. Significations
1.Formes de signification
L'art. 119 CBE ainsi que les règles 125 à 130 CBE régissent en détail la signification. Les significations peuvent être faites par la poste, par remise, par publication et par les moyens de communication électronique prévus à la règle 127 CBE. Plusieurs modifications du règlement d'exécution de la CBE, concernant la signification et l'utilisation d'outils électroniques dans les procédures devant l'OEB, sont entrées en vigueur le 1er avril 2015 (voir décision CA/D 6/14 du Conseil d'administration, JO 2015, A17). Des modifications ont notamment été apportées aux règles 125 CBE, règles 126 CBE, règles 127 CBE et règles 129 du règlement d'exécution de la CBE, lesquelles sont présentées de manière détaillée ci-dessous, sous le point intitulé "Formes de signification". La règle 125(1) CBE modifiée clarifie les types de pièces qui font l'objet d'une signification. Elle se borne à fournir une base juridique explicite à la pratique actuelle de l'Office, qui consiste à ne pas signifier formellement les communications et notifications ne faisant pas courir de délai (cf. communiqué de l'OEB en date du 30 mars 2015, JO 2015, A36). La règle 126(1) CBE a en outre été à nouveau modifiée par la décision CA/D 2/19 du Conseil d'administration (JO 2019, A31) afin de supprimer l'exigence de la signification avec accusé de réception (entrée en vigueur le 1er novembre 2019).
En ce qui concerne ce dernier moyen de signification, un projet pilote a été créé par la décision du Président de l'OEB en date du 4 juillet 2012 (JO 2012, 486), dans le but d'introduire progressivement de nouveaux moyens techniques permettant de transmettre par voie électronique des demandes de brevet, d'autres documents, des notifications et diverses informations. Ce projet pilote s'est poursuivi sur la base de la décision du Président de l'OEB en date du 11 mars 2015 (JO 2015, A28). Conformément à l'art. 12 de cette décision du Président de l'OEB, par la décision du Vice-Président en charge de la Direction générale Questions juridiques et affaires internationales (Direction générale 5) de l'OEB, en date du 23 juillet 2020 (JO 2020, A89), l'OEB a lancé un projet pilote permettant aux divisions d'examen d'utiliser le courrier électronique aux fins de signifier d'importantes informations relatives aux procédures orales. Cette dernière décision est entrée en vigueur le 1er septembre 2020 et le projet pilote s'est poursuivi jusqu'au 31 août 2021.
À compter du 1er juin 2021, les chambres de recours ont commencé à signifier des documents par voie électronique au moyen de la Mailbox de l'OEB dans les procédures de recours (Communiqué du Président des chambres de recours, en date du 13 avril 2021, concernant l'extension aux procédures de recours des significations par voie électronique au moyen de la Mailbox de l'OEB ; JO 2021, A37).
- T 1529/20
Résumé
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.