Ca chambre encore...

Est-ce pour se faire pardonner le long silence depuis la dernière livraison de décisions de recours ? Est-ce un moyen de réveiller les grands sages ? Toujours est-il que pour son unique mise en ligne de décision en 15 jours, l'Office Européen a décidé de frapper fort, avec rien moins qu'une décision destinée à être publiée dans le JO, et une autre question posée à la Grande Chambre de Recours. A savoir:

Where a notice of appeal is filed but the appeal fee is paid after expiry of the time limit of Article 108 EPC, first sentence, is this appeal inadmissible or deemed not to have been filed ?

Autant dire que l'excitation retombe tout de suite, vu qu'un parfum de déjà vu flotte dans l'air...

Bien que le fond de l'affaire soit totalement différent, l'exposé de la nécessité d'adresser cette question à la Grande Chambre de Recours est sensiblement le même que dans la décision T 1553/13. Cette décision a toutefois l'intérêt de permettre au public non germanophone et ne pouvant attendre la publication au JO d'accéder au raisonnement, en anglais cette fois. Pour faire bonne mesure, il serait opportun qu'une chambre de recours adresse la même question dans une procédure dont la langue est le français...

Un point de cette décision T 2017/12 est tout de même assez amusant. Ce recours fait suite à la décision de la division d'examen de rejet de la demande de brevet. La décision a été signifiée le 15 novembre 2011 et le recours formé le 31 mai 2012.

Pas besoin de consulter le calendrier des jours de fermeture de l'OEB pour se rendre compte que le délai de 2 mois pour former recours, et de 4 mois pour soumettre le mémoire étaient dépassés.

Le déposant a fait une requête en restitutio in integrum, soutenant que l'entreprise était en train de changer de mains, et que les négociations, plus complexes que prévues, avaient provoqué l'erreur ayant conduit à ne pas respecter le délai pour former recours. Cet argument n'a pas été retenu par la Chambre:

1.3.2 Due care in take-over periods

As a starting point the board accepts that in the course of complicated transfers of ownership of a company isolated mistakes cannot be entirely avoided despite all due care. But this does not mean that transfer negotiations alone are an acceptable excuse for failing to observe time limits. Consequently, the board cannot accept the appellant's argument that company transfer negotiations per se constitute exceptional circumstances which would establish that all due care had been taken although a time limit was missed. The board considers that the take-over of a company is a normal economic activity which does not necessarily affect everyday business. The board concludes that it was up to the appellant to provide details as to why the present take-over negotiations may have affected the patent administration in an exceptional manner.

D'autant plus que le déposant n'a apparemment pas été très explicite quant à la justification de l'influence des négociations sur le loupé des délais:

1.3.3 The facts of the case at hand

[...]The appellant did not provide any detail regarding the patent handling procedures employed by the applicant or the new owner and how they might have been affected by the "turbulent" takeover negotiations; reference is only made to "a long history of patent development" and "a hitherto flawless record". Also no concrete details were given of the nature of the error and how it occurred; all that is said is that "SnapNames or Oversee ... apparently forgot to instruct the professional representative".

Deux délais ayant été manqués (les 2 mois de la formation du recours et les 4 mois pour soumettre le mémoire), le déposant a payé deux taxes de Restitutio. Il demande le remboursement de l'une de ces taxes, en se basant sur le principe de bonne foi et sur le fait que la décision de l'OEB d'accorder la Restitutio pour ces deux évènements ne nécessitait pas plus de travail que de décider d'accorder la Restitutio pour un seul de ces évènements...

IX. In its letter of 23 September 2013 the appellant, despite having been informed via both the minutes and the subsequent communication that the board had decided this point, further argued that the fees for the omissions of filing the appeal and the grounds were in fact only one issue, as they were closely interlinked. Following the principle of good faith only one fee should be paid, because deciding on the present two issues did not cause more workload for the EPO. 

Evidemment, l'Office apprécie à sa juste mesure que l'on juge de la pertinence ou non de payer les taxes... Mais tout de même, au détour du motif 2, on trouve cette phrase curieuse : La Chambre relève que la structure des taxes de la CBE ne reflète pas nécessairement la charge de travail effectivement imposée à l'OEB dans chaque situation individuelle.

2. Refund of one fee for re-establishment of rights

[...]The board takes this as an indication that each time limit has to be considered separately and concludes that, in the absence of any hint to the contrary, for the number of fees to be paid the number of missed time limits is decisive.

[...]

The same reasoning applies to the requests for re-establishment of rights in relation to the filing of a notice of appeal and of the grounds of appeal, firstly because the corresponding time limits expire independently of one another, notwithstanding the fact that they are triggered by the same event, namely the dispatch of the written reasons for a decision. The board notes that for example if the time limit for filing an appeal were extended from a weekend to a Monday by virtue of Rule 134(1) EPC, this would have no effect on the expiry of the time limit for filing the grounds of appeal. Secondly, failure to meet either of these time limits individually results in a loss of the right to appeal. Article 108 EPC, first sentence, states that the appeal shall be filed within two months of the notification of the decision and Article 108 EPC, third sentence, provides that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification. Failure to comply with either one of the two time limits would cause the appeal to be rejected as inadmissible, provided that the appeal fee was paid. Consequently, two fees for re-establishment were indeed due and hence a refund of one of those fees is not possible.

The applicant's counter-arguments were not convincing. It depended on the principle of good faith combined with the fact that it put no additional workload on the EPO to decide on these two omitted acts rather than only one to justify its opinion that only one fee was payable. In this respect the board notes that the fee structure of the EPC does not necessarily reflect the actual workload imposed on the EPO in any individual case. Rather, legislators have chosen lump sums as fees that are for example independent of the number of auxiliary requests to be decided or the days allowed for conducting oral proceedings.

 Le demandeur ne reverra donc pas sa taxe de Restitutio. Est-ce qu'il récupèrera au moins sa taxe de recours ? C'est à la Grande Chambre de décider.