The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a request for unitary effect and confirmed that applications under Rule 97 RoP are expedited actions for which interlocutory revision by the EPO is excluded. The ruling underscores the strict, non-extendable nature of the one-month correction period under Rule 7(3) UPR and reinforces the need for absolute diligence when filing unitary effect requests.
The appellants, co-owners of EP 3 691 518, filed a request for unitary effect on 17 January 2025. The EPO noted that the name and address of one co-owner differed from the details recorded in the European Patent Register and invited correction within the one-month period provided by Rule 7(3) UPR. The corrected information was filed two working days late, on 3 March 2025. The EPO therefore rejected the request on 17 June 2025.
An application to annul the EPO’s decision was dismissed by the Central Division (Milan section) on 6 August 2025. The appellants then appealed, arguing that interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP should have been available because they had not requested expedited treatment and that the address discrepancy was minor and caused no prejudice to third parties.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that Rule 97 RoP constitutes a lex specialis governing actions against EPO decisions rejecting a request for unitary effect. Because Rule 97 requires the Registry to forward the application “as soon as practicable”, the standing judge to decide within three weeks, and the appeal itself to be lodged within three weeks, it qualifies as an expedited action under Rule 85(2) RoP. As a result, interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP is excluded.
On the merits, the Court held that the EPO correctly applied Rule 7(3) UPR. The one-month period for correcting deficiencies is mandatory and expressly excluded from re-establishment of rights under Rule 22(6) UPR. Even a short delay – here only two working days – automatically leads to rejection, and the EPO cannot accept late corrections without undermining legal certainty regarding the identity of the patent proprietors.
