Background: who may act as “agent” in the PCT international phase
Under PCT Rule 90.1(a), a person having the right to practise before the national Office with which the international application is filed (here: DPMA as receiving Office) may be appointed as agent to represent the applicant before the receiving Office, the International Bureau, the International Searching Authority (ISA) and the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).
The EPO itself confirms for proceedings before the EPO as ISA that you can be represented by the agent appointed for the international phase, i.e. your usual patent attorney entitled to practise before the competent receiving Office.
a) Greta can validly appoint Hassan to represent her before the EPO as ISA for PCT-G. — True
Because PCT-G was filed with the DPMA, and Hassan is entitled to act before the DPMA, he qualifies as an agent under PCT Rule 90.1(a) and may therefore represent Greta also before the EPO acting as ISA.
(Separate point: if Greta later enters the European phase, different EPC representation requirements may apply; but that is not asked here.)
b) As a general rule, a power of attorney need not be submitted with the EPO to appoint a representative before the EPO as ISA. — True
While the PCT provides that a separate POA may be required (PCT Rule 90.4(b)), the Authorities may waive that requirement (PCT Rule 90.4(d)) and likewise may waive attachment of a copy of a general POA (PCT Rule 90.5(c)).
The EPO states (PCT-EPO Guidelines) that it has waived the requirement to submit a separate POA in its capacity as ISA/IPEA (general rule; with exceptions such as withdrawals and cases of doubt).
c) Under the PCT, the Demand is mandatorily signed by the applicant even if a representative is validly appointed. — False
PCT Rule 53.8 says the demand shall be signed by the applicant(s).
However, PCT Rule 90.3(a) provides that any act by or in relation to an agent has the effect of an act by or in relation to the applicant.
In line with that, the official WIPO demand form explicitly provides for “Signature of applicant, agent or common representative”.
So it is not “applicant-signature only” in the sense asserted by the statement.
d) Under the PCT, a representative can only validly withdraw an international application if the representative has filed a power of attorney. — False
Withdrawals under PCT Rule 90bis are a special case: PCT Rule 90.4(e) states that for notices of withdrawal, the requirement for a separate POA cannot be waived.
But that does not mean a POA must always have been filed in every withdrawal scenario. If the agent was already duly appointed (e.g. appointment effected by the applicant signing the request/demand under PCT Rule 90.4(a)), there may be no need for an additional separate POA filing just to withdraw.
EPO practice also reflects that a POA must be filed with a withdrawal only where the agent/common representative has not yet been duly appointed (otherwise the withdrawal’s effect is delayed until POA receipt).
Hence the absolute wording “only if … has filed a power of attorney” is incorrect.
Exam Tip:
For PCT representation questions, separate:
- Who can be agent? → start with PCT Rule 90.1(a) (right to practise before the RO).
- Is a POA required? → check Rule 90.4/90.5 and whether the Authority (e.g. EPO as ISA) has a waiver.
- Withdrawals are special → waivers do not apply the same way (Rule 90.4(e)); expect POA issues to reappear.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.