Three co-proprietors of EP 3 691 518 asked the EPO for unitary effect within one month of grant. The request listed an out-of-date name and address for one co-proprietor (Université de Rennes), which had been reorganised and re-addressed under a French decree. The EPO issued a Rule 7.3 UPR (EPO Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection) deficiency notice giving a non-extendable one-month period to fix the proprietor data via EPO Form 7040. The correction arrived four days late. The EPO refused unitary effect.
The proprietors appealed to the UPC under Rule 97 RoP. Milan’s Central Division (competent for IPC “A” cases) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the EPO’s decision. Each side bears its own costs.
The UPC has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals against EPO decisions on unitary protection (Art. 32(1)(i) UPCA; Art. 9 Reg. 1257/2012). A standing judge may act for the Central Division in urgent Rule 97 matters (Art. 19 UPC Statute; Rule 97.4 RoP).
Two points where relevant.
A unitary-effect request must contain the proprietor’s official name and complete postal address as per Rule 6.2 UPR, referring to Rule 41(2)(c) EPC. The Court stressed legal certainty for third parties: this is not a “best efforts” or “close enough” test. Here, “Université de Rennes 1 / Rue du Thabor” had become the distinct legal entity “Université de Rennes / Campus de Beaulieu, 263 Ave. du Général Leclerc…”. Using the old designation and address was simply wrong.
Second, there is a one-month cure period. Rule 7.3 UPR gives a non-extendable one month to remedy formal defects; failure automatically triggers refusal. Restitution is expressly unavailable (Rule 22.6 UPR). Administrative mishaps, IT glitches, or the notion that the late filing was “only a few days” do not change anything.
The appellants asked the EPO to “self-correct” via interlocutory revision (Rule 24 RPU / Rule 91 RoP). The Court held that Rule 85(2) RoP excludes interlocutory revision in accelerated actions against EPO decisions under Rule 97. Once the refusal issued, the only path was the UPC appeal—on the merits, within the strict framework of the RPU.
This order is a reminder that the Unitary Patent layer is formalistic by design. The UPC will “enforce” the requirements of the UPR: get the proprietor’s official name and address exactly right, track portfolio reorganisations, and diary the one-month Rule 7.3 window as non-negotiable. The Court also points out that such EPO notices are binding – if you miss the cure period, there’s no equitable safety net.
For teams juggling handovers between outside counsel and in-house ops, the operational takeaway is simple: align your grant-to-UP playbook with reliable change-control on proprietor data, tested backups for deadline systems, and a same-day response habit to RPU Rule 7.3 letters.
Despite losing the appeal, the applicants and the EPO each bear their own costs under Rule 98 RoP. The Court treated this as a streamlined legality check rather than a winner-takes-all costs contest.
