REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

Farewell to the 10 day rule

No items found.
​
October 6, 2023
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

From 1 November 2023, time limits that run from the notification of a communication by the EPO no longer will run from the date of the communication plus 10 days, but from the date that the communication bears. Such time limits for response are indicated by the communication itself, and are typically four months (but sometimes other periods, such as two months).

This "10 day" rule has caused much confusion, both as to precisely which deadlines it applies to, and to its method of calculation. It is also now out of date with respect to current technology, since it assumes notifications will be sent by post, whereas nowadays most European patent attorneys receive EPO correspondence electronically. The crossover period will cause some confusion, but once that is past, EPO deadlines will become significantly easier to understand.

The rule of calculation of deadlines from the date of the communication itself will apply to communications bearing the date of 1 November 2023 or later. Thus, the determinative thing is the communication date, not the deadline date.

There continues to be a safeguard in case a communication is actually not received by its intended recipient, but this has been modified. As before, if receipt of a document is contested by the addressee, the burden of proving that a document has been delivered, and its date of delivery, lies and remains with the EPO. If the EPO cannot prove that a document has been delivered at all, then the document must be reissued and any related deadline is calculated from the new document date.

The modified safeguard relates to late receipt. From 1 November, if the EPO can prove that a document was delivered within 7 days of the date it bears, then the deadline is calculated from the document date and no adjustment is made for the time taken for delivery. If it was delivered more than 7 days after the date it bears, then the deadline is extended by an amount corresponding to the delivery date minus the document date, minus 7 days. So, for example, if an addressee receives a document 12 days after the date it bears, the response period will be extended by five days.

Ironically, just as the EPO is abolishing the 10 day rule, the UPC has implemented it for notifications by post (for example postal service of a claim on a defendant).

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​