Farewell to the 10 day rule

​
Darren Smyth
​
October 6, 2023
No items found.
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 It is also now out of date with respect to current technology, since it assumes notifications will be sent by post, whereas nowadays most European patent attorneys receive EPO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

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​