Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)
    Image
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Research universities and public research organisations
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. R 0016/14 21-10-2016
Facebook X Linkedin Email

R 0016/14 21-10-2016

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2016:R001614.20161021
Date of decision
21 October 2016
Case number
R 0016/14
Petition for review of
T 2122/12
Application number
06116943.9
IPC class
B41J 2/175
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS (B)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 34.41 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Method of determining the droplet size of ink droplets released by an ink jet printer

Applicant name
Océ-Technologies B.V.
Opponent name
-
Board
-
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(c)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(2)(d)
European Patent Convention Art 112a(5)
European Patent Convention R 104(b)
European Patent Convention R 108(3)
Keywords

Petition for review only against an independent part of the decision under review (yes)

Objection raised after decision was given – Rule 106 EPC complied with (yes) – objection could not be raised earlier

Petition for review – admissible (yes)

Petition for review – allowable (no) - fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC (no) - failure to decide on relevant request (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
R 0003/10
R 0019/12
R 0008/15
J 0027/86
T 0740/93
T 1557/07
Citing decisions
R 0005/23

I. The petition for review concerns the ex-parte decision T 2122/12 of 2 June 2014 of Board of Appeal 3.2.05 (notified on 2 October 2014). The Board decided that a second auxiliary request was allowable, and the case was remitted to the examining division with the order to grant a patent on this basis. The then pending main request and the first auxiliary request were held not to be allowable since the subject-matter of claim 9 of the main request and claim 2 of the first auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step. On 9 September 2015, European patent no. 1 747 890 was granted on the basis of said allowable second auxiliary request.

II. In the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant-petitioner submitted that various procedural violations had occurred in the examination proceedings and requested that the appeal fee be reimbursed. In particular, the appellant-petitioner argued that the examining division had not provided sufficient factual and legal reasoning (par. 3.3.1) and that the examining division had not commented on submitted arguments and had not considered submitted arguments (par. 3.3.2, 3.3.3). Finally, the appellant-petitioner argued that the appealed decision of the examining division was unclear with respect to the grounds of refusal since not all of the communications referred to in the decision referred to the same grounds of refusal. (The decision of the examining division consisted merely of a reference to three communications after the appellant-petitioner had requested “a decision based on the file as it stands” in its letter of 26 January 2010.)

III. In its communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings sent on 14 March 2014, the Board addressed the above-mentioned alleged procedural violations individually (points 12.1 to 12.4). The Board came to the preliminary conclusion that no substantial procedural violation had taken place and that the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee was likely to be refused (point 12.5).

IV. In its reply letter dated 1 May 2014, the petitioner addressed in detail all issues dealt with in the preliminary opinion of the Board of Appeal. Three conditional requests for referrals of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were made, each based on a different condition and containing a set of questions. The conditions related to the Board’s position on (i) the nature of a substantial procedural violation, (ii) the burden of proof in connection with the consideration of arguments and (iii) the possibility of the examining division of ignoring any arguments of the applicant.

V. Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal took place on 2 June 2014. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee was discussed and refused.

VI. The petition was filed on 10 November 2014, and the corresponding fee was paid on 11 November 2014. Oral proceedings were requested as a precaution in a separate letter filed on 13 November 2014. The petitioner requested

1) that the decision under review be set aside and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal be reopened;

2) that the Board of Appeal be ordered to put a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal “in case the Board of Appeal intends to maintain the position that an examining division has the option to ignore any arguments advanced by an applicant”; and

3) that the members of the Board of Appeal be replaced if the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not intend to order the requested conditional referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

VII. The petition was based on Article 112a(2)(d) in connection with Rule 104(b) EPC (failure to decide on a request relevant to the decision) and on Article 112a(2)(c) EPC (fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC). The petitioner’s main argument was that its conditional procedural requests were “circumvented” in the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and that the written reasons relied on an opinion of the Board of Appeal that should have led to a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. This conduct of the appeal proceedings meant that the Board decided on the appeal without deciding on a request relevant to that decision and that the Board of Appeal prevented the petitioner from explaining and discussing at the oral proceedings in detail (I) the issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings and (II) the relevance of the related questions for the Enlarged Board, thereby denying the right to be heard (page 4, first paragraph, of the petition).

VIII. Oral proceedings in the three-member composition of the Enlarged Board were held on 4 July 2016. The requests 2) and 3) (see above under VI) were withdrawn during these oral proceedings. At the end of these oral proceedings, the Chairman announced the decision that the petition for review was submitted to the Enlarged Board of Appeal as composed under Rule 109(2)(b) EPC for decision.

IX. The present five-member composition of the Enlarged Board was determined and the petitioner was summoned to new oral proceedings.

X. Oral proceedings in the five-member composition of the Enlarged Board were held on 21 October 2016. During these oral proceedings, the petitioner confirmed its request, namely that the decision under review be set aside and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 3.2.05 be reopened. The petitioner confirmed that the alleged procedural violations solely concerned the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee and the conditional requests for referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal related thereto. At the end of these oral proceedings, the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal was announced.

XI. Taking into account the submissions made during the oral proceedings of 4 July 2016 and of 21 October 2016, the petitioner’s lines of argument can be summarised as follows:

- The conditional requests filed in the appeal proceedings by letter of 1 May 2014 to refer certain questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (in particular, the question whether an examining division may ignore an applicant’s argument made in response to an outstanding objection; see item (iii) at point IV above) were not discussed during oral proceedings before the Board. The letter was only briefly discussed before the Chairman said that he was “putting the letter aside”. The board prevented the petitioner from explaining and discussing at the oral proceedings in detail (I) the issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings and (II) the relevance of the related questions for the Enlarged Board (see the first paragraph of page 4 of the petition). The petitioner had to conclude from this that the Board did not consider the conditional requests for referrals to be relevant any more. The conditional requests for referral were never withdrawn. The fact that they had not been addressed by the petitioner during oral proceedings could not be interpreted as a withdrawal. No formal decision was taken on these requests.

- The Board apparently based its written decision on the assumption that an examining division has the possibility of ignoring arguments of the applicant in a communication that is meant to respond to such arguments. Since such a position of the Board of Appeal was the condition for one of the conditional requests for a referral to the Enlarged Board (see above item (iii) at point IV), this conditional request for a referral was still relevant and should have been discussed during oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The petitioner was prevented from explaining and discussing at the oral proceedings in detail (I) the issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings and (II) the relevance of the related questions for the Enlarged Board. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the Board would indicate if it was considering maintaining its position concerning the points underlying one of the conditional requests for a referral (i.e., the position that the examining division could ignore arguments of the applicant).

- The decision under review did not provide sufficient reasons to allow the petitioner to understand why the Board had come to its conclusion (i.e., that there was no substantial procedural violation in the first instance proceedings). Not providing any arguments in the decision on the appellant’s arguments concerning the first instance proceedings and the conditional request for referral constituted a violation of the right to be heard. Point 4 of the decision under review referred to the low “complexity” of the claimed subject-matter and to certain misunderstandings. Misunderstandings should have been avoided; they may have been one reason for the procedural violations. The “complexity” had never been discussed and appeared only in the written decision. Furthermore, “complexity” was not an argument in the context of the right to be heard.

- The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee was not really discussed during oral proceedings before the Board. The petitioner could present its arguments but was asked not to repeat its written statements. The Board did not give any comment on these arguments.

1. The petitioner’s objections

1.1 The petitioner’s objections are, on the one hand, based on Article 112a(2)(d) in connection with Rule 104(b) EPC (decision on the appeal without deciding on a request relevant to that decision). On the other hand, they concern an alleged fundamental violation of Article 113(1) EPC (right to be heard) committed by the Board of Appeal (Article 112a(2)(c) EPC). This is because the board had allegedly prevented the petitioner from explaining and discussing at the oral proceedings in detail (I) the issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings and (II) the relevance of the related questions for the Enlarged Board (see the first paragraph of page 4 of the petition). Furthermore, not providing any arguments in the decision on the appellant’s arguments concerning the first instance proceedings and the conditional request for referral constituted a violation of the right to be heard.

1.2 Since the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee itself clearly led to a decision (point 3 of the order as announced in the oral proceedings and in the written decision), the only request that should have led but did not lead to a decision in the petitioner’s view is the conditional request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning the possibility of the examining division to ignore any arguments of the applicant (labelled condition (iii) above, at point IV). The question whether there should have been a decision on that conditional request is closely related to the right to be heard in connection with the discussion of that request and the relevance of the corresponding question to be referred under that request for the decision under review.

1.3 The question whether the conditional requests for referrals were sufficiently discussed and whether there should have been a decision on them can furthermore not be easily separated from the general issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings. The petitioner’s allegations that the examining division’s reasoning was insufficient underlie both the objections (I) against the discussion of the right to be heard in the first instance proceedings and (II) against the discussion of the relevance of the referral question (iii) as well as the lack of a decision on the referral requests. It is recalled that referral question (iii) concerns the possibility of the examining division to ignore any arguments of the applicant.

1.4 The petitioner’s position can be summarised as follows: The Board of Appeal should have given the petitioner the opportunity to discuss the right to be heard in examination proceedings. This would have enabled the petitioner to try to convince the Board that the examining division was not entitled to ignore arguments of the applicant. In the alternative, if the Board remained still unconvinced, the petitioner should have been allowed to try to convince the Board that the condition for conditional request (iii) was met and thereafter explain that request. Finally, it would have been for the Board to decide on that request.

2. Admissibility of the petition

2.1 The decision under review was posted to the petitioner on 2 October 2014. The petition was filed on 10 November 2014 and the corresponding fee was paid on 11 November 2014. The petition was thus filed and the prescribed fee was paid within the applicable two month time limit under Article 112a(4) EPC. The formal requirements of Rule 107 EPC were complied with and the petition was sufficiently reasoned.

2.2 The decision under review set aside the examining division’s decision to refuse the application and it ordered the grant of a patent on the basis of the then pending second auxiliary request (points 1 and 2 of the order). Since the petitioner has not argued that any of the alleged procedural violations affected any requests made in the appeal proceedings other than the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee, the petitioner’s request that the decision under review be set aside is understood by the Enlarged Board as a request to set aside only point 3 of the order concerning the reimbursement of the appeal fee (see point 6 of the Enlarged Board’s communication of 22 April 2016 and point X above).

2.3 As far as said point 3 of the order is concerned, the petitioner is adversely affected by the decision under review (Article 112a(1) EPC). Even though the possibility of partially setting aside a decision and of filing corresponding requests is not foreseen in Article 112a(5) and Rule 108(3) EPC, the present request for partially setting aside the appeal decision is admissible since it is clear which part of the decision is to be be set aside (see R 19/12 of 12 April 2016, point 4; see also J 27/86 of 13 October 1987 where only a part of the examining division’s decision was set aside).

2.4 The Enlarged Board agrees with the petitioner in that an objection under Rule 106 EPC could not have been raised during the appeal proceedings. While the petitioner could assume at the end of the oral proceedings that the conditional requests for a remittal to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were not relevant any more (page 2 of the petition, fourth paragraph from the bottom), only the written decision gave rise to the second objection underlying the petition for review.

2.5 The petition is therefore in compliance with Rules 106 and 107 EPC and admissible.

3. Allowability of the petition

3.1 The petitioner claimed that it was prevented from explaining and discussing at the oral proceedings in detail the issue of the right to be heard in examination proceedings (I, see above point VII) and the relevance of the related questions for the Enlarged Board embodied in three conditional requests made in its letter of 1 May 2014 (II, see above point VII). While the petitioner assumed at the end of the oral proceedings that none of the conditional requests for referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were still relevant, it concludes from the written decision that the Board of Appeal was of the opinion that an examining division has the possibility of ignoring any arguments of the applicant in a communication responding to such arguments. Since such a position of the Board of Appeal was the condition for one of the conditional requests for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (i.e. conditional request (iii) mentioned above, at point IV), this conditional request for a referral was still relevant and had never been withdrawn. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was prevented from explaining and discussing the related questions for the Enlarged Board. Apart from that, the decision on the appeal was adopted without deciding on a request relevant to that decision. This latter objection will be addressed first.

3.2 First objection: failure to decide on a request relevant to the decision (Article 112a(2)(d) in connection with Rule 104(b) EPC)

3.2.1 From the petitioner’s statements in its written submissions and during both oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the Enlarged Board takes that the petitioner, on the basis of what had been discussed at the oral proceedings in the appeal proceedings, assumed that there was no need any more to consider the procedural requests (page 3 of the petition, second paragraph). The petitioner had to conclude that the Board did not consider the conditional requests for referrals to be relevant any more, and, consequently, the petitioner did not expect a decision on these requests and had no reason to insist on such decision by raising an objection under Rule 106 EPC (see above point 2.4 in the context of the admissibility of the petition). It was only the written reasons that according to the petitioner let the conditional request (iii) again appear to have been relevant.

3.2.2 In the reasons of the decision under review, when addressing the alleged violations of the right to be heard, the Board of Appeal explained why in its view the examining division did not commit a substantial procedural violation within the meaning of Rule 103(1)(a) EPC. The Board of Appeal viewed the subject-matter of the claims as not particularly complex since the invention only involved measuring three parameters and calculating an average and the cited passages of the prior art were not extensive (Reasons point 4 of the decision under review). From this, it follows that the Board of Appeal viewed it as appropriate for the examining division in the particular case in question not to indicate in detail which features of the independent claims were disclosed in which passages of the prior art documents and not to address all arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant for the claimed subject-matter. It is not within the scope of the review proceedings to assess the correctness of these findings, as these relate purely to the assessment of the facts of the case by the Board of Appeal which is not the subject of review proceedings.

3.2.3 From the reasons given in the decision under review, the petitioner concluded that the Board of Appeal was of the opinion that an examining division may ignore submissions of an applicant (page 3 of the petition, third and fourth paragraph from the bottom). The Enlarged Board cannot agree to this conclusion, which the petitioner drew from its account of point 4 of the decision under review. In the view of the Enlarged Board, point 4 is to be interpreted in the sense that the Board of Appeal was of the opinion that in less complex cases there was less need to address each and every argument presented by the parties. Such opinion is in line with the case law regarding the duty of a first-instance department to state reasons which clarified that the deciding organ is not obliged to address every single argument as long as the parties are enabled to understand whether the decision was justified or not (see, e.g. T 1557/07 of 9 July 2008, point 2.6). Decision T 740/93 of 10 January 1996, on which the petitioner relied, also stated that not all the arguments submitted should be dealt with in detail in a decision (point 5.4). Not explicitly addressing specific points which, in the deciding organ’s view, do not have to be addressed in order to arrive at an understandable decision does not mean that such points are “ignored”. The Enlarged Board does not see how the passages in point 4 of the decision under review may be read onto the condition used for its conditional request for referral in the petitioner’s letter of 1 May 2014 (“If the Board actually believes and maintains the position that the Examining Division has the possibility to ignore any arguments of the applicant in a Communication responsive to such arguments, the Board is requested…”, quoted on page 2 of the petition, second paragraph, emphasis added by the Enlarged Board). Nor has the Enlarged Board found any other indication according to which the Board of Appeal would have acknowledged a right of the first instance to “ignore” certain arguments.

3.2.4 Since the condition underlying the conditional request (iii) (namely, that the Board of Appeal took the position that an examining division had the option to ignore arguments advanced by an applicant) was not met, the petitioner’s allegation that conditional request (iii) had become relevant again for the written reasons of the decision under review and should have been decided upon does not hold. As a consequence, the claim of infringement of Rule 104(b) EPC must be dismissed.

3.3 Second objection: fundamental violation of Article 113(1) EPC (Article 112a(2)(c) EPC)

3.3.1 From the petitioner’s summary of facts, the Enlarged Board takes that the alleged denial of the right to be heard in the examination proceedings was discussed extensively during oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The petitioner had the possibility to explain further all of its arguments relating to the alleged substantial procedural violation in the first instance proceedings, including its conditional request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (page 2 of the petition, fourth paragraph from the bottom). However, as the petitioner confirmed during the second oral proceedings before the Enlarged Board, it did not specifically address the conditional requests during oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. According to the petitioner, the Board of Appeal, in response to its arguments, did not express any opinion or provide any arguments except for a statement that the Board of Appeal believed the examining division had done enough (page 2 of the petition, fourth and third paragraph from the bottom).

3.3.2 Even though the conditional requests had not been explicitly referred to during the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal (see above point 3.3.1), the Enlarged Board takes from the petitioner’s account of the oral proceedings that the petitioner’s arguments concerning the alleged procedural violations as presented in the letter of 1 May 2014 were discussed. The chairman of the Board of Appeal referred to the petitioner’s letter of 1 May 2014 (“written response of the Appellant”) and to the petitioner’s arguments therein (page 2 of the petition, fifth paragraph from the bottom). At the end of the oral proceedings, the petitioner had “no reason to assume that any of the conditional requests in the written response were still relevant” (page 2 of the petition, fourth paragraph from the bottom). The chairman of the Board of Appeal indicated that the content of the letter was no longer relevant and eventually “the letter was put aside” (page 2 of the petition, fifth paragraph from the bottom).

3.3.3 In the light of the foregoing, the Enlarged Board cannot identify a violation of the right to be heard on the basis of the conduct of the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

3.3.4 Furthermore, it also follows from the contents of the decision under review, especially its point 4, that the question of whether there was a substantial procedural violation in the first-instance proceedings was substantively addressed by the Board of Appeal in the decision, as both required and also found sufficient by the case law (see R 8/15 of 18 July 2016, catchword 1). For these reasons, the petitioner’s allegations that insufficient reasons given for the decision under review constitute a violation of the right to be heard cannot be accepted.

3.4 In the context of its assertion that only the written decision revealed that certain arguments had not been sufficiently discussed and a related request had not been decided upon, the petitioner relied, inter alia, on decision R 3/10 of 29 September 2011 which led to the re-opening of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. In R 3/10, the petitioner’s main request was not allowed for lack of inventive step while at the oral proceedings only novelty objections had been discussed. It was clearly derivable from the written decision (and already from the announcement during oral proceedings) on which argument (i.e., obviousness) that had not been discussed at oral proceedings the decision was based. In contrast, the arguments which in the view of the petitioner should have led to further discussions and a decision on conditional request (iii) were turning on an undisclosed opinion the Board of Appeal allegedly had (i.e., that an examining division could ignore arguments raised by the applicant). As explained above (point 3.2.3), it cannot be derived from the decision or any other behaviour of the Board of Appeal that the Board had such opinion.

3.5 In conclusion, the Enlarged Board finds neither of the petitioner’s objections (failure to decide on a request and violation of the right to be heard) to be well-founded and, as a consequence, cannot allow the petition.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The petition for review is rejected as being unallowable.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility