There are two possible ways of seeking reinstatement of a European patent application that has lapsed, either by restitutio in integrum, which applies only in certain situations and requires a showing that the applicant has taken all due care to comply with any time limit that has been missed, or by showing that the proceedings had been "interrupted". Possible situations in which interruption may be acknowledged: death or legal incapacity of the applicant or his representative and action against the applicant which prevents him for legal reasons from continuing proceedings before the EPO. Some older decisions have held that bankruptcy under German law or being placed in receivership under French law were situations in which the applicant had been prevented from proceeding for legal reasons. In the case of Bankruptcy/VPL the Legal Board of Appeal considered whether proceedings could be considered as being interrupted when the applicant was undergoing reorganization under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The Board held that in such a case the applicant could not be regarded as being prevented from continuing proceedings before the EPO for legal reasons. The Board noted that in most cases of Chapter 11 reorganization the applicant remained in possession of its assets as a debtor in possession although supervised by a court and that the appointment of a trustee was rare. Where the applicant remained in possession of its assets it continued to do business. The situation was therefore different from bankruptcy under French or German law. The Board therefore concluded that:

The Board could find no specific circumstances to rebut this conclusion in the case before it. The applicant, which had ultimately been purchased by Sun Microsystems, alleged that it had no cash left to pay its attorneys for proceedings before the EPO when the terms that were missed expired. However, the Board held that this did not mean that it was without any assets that could have been used.

The Board went on to consider whether the application could be revived under the restitutio procedure. It was noted that not only had the applicants failed to respond to an official action in time but they had also failed to pay a maintenance fee. When seeking restitutio only one fee had been paid. However, since the lapsing of the application was the result of two separate omissions, two fees should have been paid. This being the case, the application for restitutio also failed.