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
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • 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

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • 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
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Find a professional representative
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • 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
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • 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

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • 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
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • 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
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • 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

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • 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
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • 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
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • 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
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • 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
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 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)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • 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
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • 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
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • 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
      • 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
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • 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
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • 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
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • 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
      • 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
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • 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
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • 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
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • 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
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • 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
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • 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
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 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
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • 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
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • 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
      • 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
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 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
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • 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
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 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
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t121814eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 1814/12 (Messaging and document management/EPOSTAL SERVICES) 15-02-2018
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 1814/12 (Messaging and document management/EPOSTAL SERVICES) 15-02-2018

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2018:T181412.20180215
Date of decision
15 February 2018
Case number
T 1814/12
Petition for review of
-
Application number
06720704.3
IPC class
G06F 17/28
H04L 12/58
H04L 29/06
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 402.79 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Messaging and document management system and method

Applicant name
Epostal Services, Inc.
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.07
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 111(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11
European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)
European Patent Convention R 111(2)
European Patent Convention Art 117
Keywords

Decision according to the state of the file - reasoned within the meaning of Rule 111(2) EPC (no)

Substantial procedural violation - (yes)

Reimbursement of appeal fee - (yes)

Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes)

Internet disclosures - sufficient degree of certainty (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0583/04
T 0545/08
T 2227/11
Citing decisions
-

I. The applicant (appellant) appealed against the decision of the Examining Division refusing European patent application No. 06720704.3, filed on 13 February 2006 as international application PCT/US2006/005052 and published as WO 2007/094772. The application does not claim a priority.

II. In the proceedings leading to the refusal, the first communication issued by the Examining Division referred to the European search opinion, according to which inter alia originally filed claim 1 lacked inventive step over the following documents, cited in the European search report, in combination:

D1: WO 2004/084042 A2, published on 30 September 2004;

D2: Visser, Jos et al.: "On ProxyTunnel or How To Give Network Security Administrators a Tremendous Headache", Internet publication, 1 April 2002, pages 1 to 17, retrieved from the Internet on 20 March 2009 using the URL http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/paper.php.

III. In its letter of reply dated 24 December 2009, the appellant filed a new request inter alia comprising a set of replacement claims and submitted the following arguments concerning the publication date of document D2:

"Further to the above, we would also point out that the Examiner has not substantiated the alleged publication date for document D2. The document was retrieved by the Examiner, according to the International search report [sic], on 20 March 2009, which is after the present application's filing date. Whilst the document bears on its face a date stamp of 1 April 2002, which the Examiner appears to have relied upon, it is to be noted that it also notes that it was updated on 3 March 2008. As such, the following points are not clear:

• Whether the alleged publication date of 1 April 2002 is indeed correct

• Whether any changes have been made to the document between that date and the filing date of the present application

• What amendments were made to the document after the International filing date and particularly what amendments were made on 3 March 2008

• Whether the date claimed for the article of 1 April 2002 was a publication date or merely some other creation date and so whether the document was available to the public on the date of 1 April 2002

The Examiner is required by a Board of Appeal decision T1134/06 to establish the same facts as would be the case with a prior use or prior oral disclosure, namely when, what and under which circumstances this disclosure was made available to the public. We would submit that there is sufficient doubt even on the data on the face of the document as to when and what was disclosed that D2 should be withdrawn from consideration. At least, the Examiner should justify further why this document is citable."

IV. In its second communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC, the Examining Division replied to the appellant's arguments concerning the publication date of document D2 as follows:

"In the letter dated 24.12.2009, on page 4 onwards, the Applicant requested a clarification about the date of document D2. Said document contains an article called "On ProxyTunnel" and, on the first page, a so called "Newflash!" containing an update on the same theme.

The date of the article is clearly indicated under the title, and is the 01.04.2002. The update is clearly contained only in the first lines of the page and has been added on 03.03.2008. It is very clear by the position of said update and by the text of the update that the added part is confined in the lines from the word "Newflash!" to the word "Maniac".

Therefore according to the principle of "free evaluation of evidence" as stated in T482/89 and in T750/94, it is considered that the date of disclosure of the article can be reasonably considered as being the 01.04.2002."

V. In its letter of reply, the appellant again questioned whether document D2 was prior art against the application and reserved its right to elaborate further on this point before the Examining Division or in appeal proceedings.

VI. In a later stage of the proceedings, the Examining Division issued a further communication, together with a summons to oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC, on 8 July 2011. According to this communication (hereafter: "communication A") the examination had been carried out on the claims of the sole request submitted with the applicant's letter of 24 December 2010.

(a) Claim 1 of that request reads as follows:

"A communication system (10) that transmits electronic mail having a message content component and a message data component relating to the message content and/or its transmission, among multiple Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) and which both uses and augments the Internet (18), comprising:

a server (20) and server software (24, 24'),

links (16) connecting the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') to the Internet (18), and

Sender software (22)

(i) operable on at least the Sender terminal (12) and

(ii) operable with conventional electronic mail application software also operating on the Sender terminal (12) to

(iii) selectively provide access by the Sender terminal (12) and said Sender software (22) to said server (20) and server software (24, 24') for managing and processing the electronic mail transmitted from the Sender terminal (12) in order to provide the communication system's (10) premium mail services to the electronic mail, and

(iv) begin processing of said premium mail services to the electronic mail,

characterized by the Sender software being operable to:

(v) facilitate said Sender terminal (12) and Sender software (22) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') communicating with one another, at least in part, using direct communications to create a virtual intranet for use by the Sender terminal (12), Recipient terminal (14), and the communication system (10) itself,

wherein said direct communications are custom and comprise said Sender (22), Recipient (26), and server (24, 24') software operating on those terminals to open a communication connection for a transmission session using one-time session IDs, establish security on said links (16) with communication system (10) controlled encryption, authenticate the sender, transmit said direct communications message content and/or message data in custom message structures, and close the transmission protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, or other socket protocols."

(b) Communication A contained objections under Article 56 EPC (lack of inventive step) against the then pending claims based on document D1 as closest prior art in combination with document D2 and the assessment of certain features as "standard features of an encrypted communication".

VII. In response to the summons to oral proceedings, the appellant filed with its letter of 16 January 2012 an amended main request replacing the prior main request, a first and a second auxiliary request and detailed arguments.

Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"A communication system (10) that transmits electronic mail having a message content component and a message data component relating to the message content and/or its transmission, among multiple Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) and which both uses and augments the Internet (18), comprising:

a server (20) and server software (24, 24'),

links (16) connecting the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') to the Internet (18), and

Sender software (22)

(i) operable on at least the Sender terminal (12) and

(ii) operable with conventional electronic mail application software also operating on the Sender terminal (12) to

(iii) selectively provide access by the Sender terminal (12) and said Sender software (22) to said server (20) and server software (24, 24') for managing and processing the electronic mail transmitted from the Sender terminal (12) in order to provide the communication system's (10) premium mail services to the electronic mail, and

(iv) begin processing of said premium mail services to the electronic mail,

characterized by the Sender software being operable to:

(v) facilitate said Sender terminal (12) and Sender software (22) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') communicating with one another and forming a communications network in which the Sender terminal (12) and the Recipient terminal (14) each communicate with and transmit data directly to the server (20),

at least one of the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) sending a message having a unique message structure to the server (20), the unique message structure including an encrypted data block, a session ID, and a session encryption key, the encrypted data block being encrypted by the session encryption key, wherein the session ID and the session encryption key are generated by the server (20), and

the server (20) receives the message having the unique message structure, decrypts the encrypted data block, and sends a further message to the at least one of the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14)."

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request replaces the characterising part of claim 1 of the main request as follows:

"characterized by the Sender software being operable to:

(v) facilitate said Sender terminal (12) and Sender software (22) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') communicating with one another and forming a communications network in which the Sender terminal (12) and the Recipient terminal (14) each communicate with and transmit data directly to the server (20),

the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) utilizing unique message structures in which one of the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) sends a request message to the server (20), and the other of the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14) receives a response message from the server (20),

the request and response messages each include an encrypted data block, and the request message further includes a session ID and a session symmetric key, the encrypted data block being encrypted by the session symmetric key, wherein the session ID and the session symmetric key are generated by the server (20), and

the server (20) receives the request message, decrypts and processes the encrypted data block in the request message, and sends the response message to the other of the Sender and Recipient terminals (12, 14)."

Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request replaces the characterising part of claim 1 of the main request as follows:

"characterized by the Sender software being operable to:

(v) facilitate said Sender terminal (12) and Sender software (22) and said server (20) and server software (24, 24') communicating with one another and forming a communications network in which the Sender terminal (12) and the Recipient terminal (14) each communicate with and transmit data directly to the server (20) through a secure channel using a unique message structure including an encrypted data block, a session ID, and a session encryption key, the encrypted data block being encrypted by the session encryption key,

wherein the system is configured to establish the secure channel for a communication session by the following steps:

the Sender terminal sends a request message to the server, the request message including a public key;

the server generates and stores the session ID and the session encryption key, encrypts these with the public key and sends them back to the Sender in a response message; and

the Sender receives the response message, decrypts the session ID and the session encryption key and stores the session ID and the session encryption key for use in all further data transmissions having the unique message structure to the server in the communication session."

VIII. The first examiner and the appellant's representative held a consultation by telephone before the scheduled date of the oral proceedings. The result of this telephone consultation was communicated to the appellant with a letter dated 2 February 2012 (hereafter "communication B") and is as follows:

"The Examiner informed the Representative that the new filed sets of claims (main request and 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests) does [sic] not fulfill the requirements of Article 56 EPC over the combination of documents D1 and D2.

In particular in said set of claims explicit reference has been made to different specific features of an encrypted communication.

The Examiner pointed out that document D2 explicitly refers to HTTPS and SSH in the same context of the claimed invention (see page 8 onwards, paragraph "Popping your mail with ProxyTunnel"). Therefore the person skilled in the art would implement all the different features of said protocols, even if not explicitly listed in document D2. For instance HTTPS is implemented using SSL, that anticipates the new features of the filed sets of claims.

Therefore the person skilled in the art would implement said standard features without involving an inventive step in the sense of Article 56 EPC.

Oral Proceeding are maintained as scheduled."

IX. In a letter dated 13 February 2012, the appellant informed the Examining Division that it would not be attending the oral proceedings scheduled for 16 February 2012 and requested "a decision based on the current state of the file". In reply, the Examining Division cancelled the oral proceedings.

X. On 24 February 2012, the Examining Division issued a decision "according to the state of the file" on EPO Form 2061. It reads as follows:

"In the communication(s) dated 08.07.2011, 02.02.2012 the applicant was informed that the application does not meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention. The applicant was also informed of the reasons therein.

The applicant filed no comments or amendments in reply to the latest communication but requested a decision according to the state of the file by a letter received in due time on 14.02.2012.

The European patent application is therefore refused on the basis of Article 97(2) EPC."

XI. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requested that the decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of one of the main and two auxiliary requests considered in the contested decision. The appellant submitted that it does "not consider that the examiner has addressed the argumentation submitted in support of the main request" and that the skilled person would not consider the combination of documents D1 and D2.

XII. In a communication of 11 March 2013, the appellant was invited to file a copy of the statement of grounds of appeal duly signed by an authorised person as the statement of grounds was deemed not to be signed.

XIII. With a letter dated 19 March 2013, the appellant submitted a copy of the statement of grounds of appeal duly signed by a person authorised to act in the proceedings.

XIV. In a communication under Rule 100(2) EPC, the Board informed the appellant of its provisional opinion that the decision of the Examining Division was insufficiently reasoned and that the decision was also deficient for other reasons. Consequently, the Board intended to set aside the decision due to a severe procedural violation, to reimburse the appeal fee and to remit the case for further prosecution to the department of first instance. Moreover, the appellant was asked to clarify whether it maintained its request for oral proceedings should the Board remit the case.

XV. In reply, the appellant submitted that oral proceedings before the Board were not necessary and that the application could be remitted. Moreover, a refund of the appeal fee was requested.

Admissibility of the appeal

1. As the appellant remedied the deficiency of the missing signature of an authorised person authenticating the statement of grounds of appeal in due time (Rule 50(3), second sentence, EPC), the appeal complies with the provisions referred to in Rule 101 EPC and is therefore admissible.

Deficiencies of the contested decision

2. According to Rule 111(2) EPC decisions of the European Patent Office which are open to appeal (including decisions "according to the state of the file") must be reasoned. This provision has been interpreted by the boards of appeal as requiring a reasoning which enables the appellant and the board to examine whether or not the decision was justified. The grounds upon which the decision is based and all decisive considerations in respect of the factual and legal aspects of the case must therefore be contained in the decision.

3. The contested decision is a decision on the state of the file. It is in a standard form and does not itself specify the grounds on which it is based; it simply refers to preceding communications where corresponding objections were raised (see Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (November 2017), C-V, 15.2). According to well-established case law of the boards of appeal, a decision drafted using this standard form complies with the requirement that a decision be reasoned pursuant to Rule 111(2) EPC only if certain conditions are fulfilled. In particular, the examining division must have fully expressed and reasoned its objections in the cited preceding communication or communications, taking into account all relevant arguments put forward by the applicant.

4. Moreover, specific problems may arise when a decision on the state of the file refers to several preceding communications in which different objections were raised. Such a decision often causes at least some uncertainty about the reasons on which the refusal decision relies. The risk of uncertainty increases if the claim sets submitted by the applicant change between the communications referred to. It has therefore been held in several appeal decisions that a decision on the state of the file does not meet the requirements of Rule 111(2) EPC if it leaves it up to the applicant and the board of appeal to construe the applicable reasons by mosaicking various objections and arguments from several communications, or if it creates doubts as to which objections apply to which claim version (see the decisions cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th edition 2016, III.K.4.3.2). This case law is reflected in the following passage of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (November 2017), C-V, 15.2:

"Although it is possible by way of exception to refer to more than one communication in the standard form, the examiner should carefully consider the requirements of Rule 111(2). In particular, if the different communications deal with different sets of claims, such that it is not clear which of the reasons given by the Examining Division in its communications might be essential to the decision to refuse, a fully reasoned decision should be issued instead (see C-V, 15.3)."

5. The contested decision merely refers for its reasons to the communications dated 8 July 2011 and 2 February 2012, i.e. communications A and B. While communication A is a communication accompanying a summons to attend oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC, communication B is a summary record of a telephone consultation, which is not stricto sensu a communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC. According to the established case law of the boards of appeal (see the decisions cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 8th edition 2016, III.K.4.3.4; decision T 0583/04 of 6 June 2006, points 9 to 11 of the reasons), a decision on the state of the file should be taken on the basis of facts and arguments already on the file in written form, which excludes the minutes of a telephone conversation unless the statements made orally in this telephone conversation were confirmed in a written communication. For this reason alone, the contested decision does not meet the requirements of Rule 111(2) EPC.

6. Moreover, there are further deficiencies in the appealed decision. Between the two communications A and B, the appellant filed a new main request and new first and second auxiliary requests - see above, section VII. All the new requests differed substantially from the sole request with which communication A was concerned. Communication B does not contain a self-sufficient reasoning for any of these new requests; instead, it merely addresses the "new features of the filed sets of claims". This prima facie creates doubts as to the extent to which the objections raised in communication A are still relied on by the Examining Division in its refusal decision. The Board therefore assesses in the following whether the present case may be regarded as exceptional in that a combined reading of both communications would make it possible to determine with sufficient certainty the relevant facts and the logical chain of reasoning on which the decision is based.

7. The appellant's requests refused with the contested decision are the main request, and the first and second auxiliary requests filed with letter of 16 January 2012. As these requests were filed by the appellant between communications A and B, they were only considered in communication B. Claim 1 of the refused requests differs from claim 1 of the sole request considered in communication A in that the characterising part of claim 1 has been replaced. For example, the characterising part of claim 1 of the main request refused in the contested decision refers to a "unique message structure including an encrypted data block, a session ID, and a session encryption key, the encrypted data block being encrypted by the session encryption key, wherein the session ID and the session encryption key are generated by the server". This feature is not present in claim 1 of the sole request considered in communication A. It is also not examined in communication A in the context of the examination of the then pending further claims. The Board is aware of the fact that communication A does refer to "additional features" including encryption and the transmission of message data. The Examining Division argued that these additional features, which were not mentioned as part of the identified difference over the system known from D1, were merely "standard features of an encrypted communication", but provided no evidence for this allegation. As the wording of the relevant features has changed substantially in the refused requests, the reasoning given in communication A cannot apply to these refused requests.

Communication B merely summarises the telephone communication. This summary does not contain a detailed examination of the pending requests, nor does it comprise any specific analysis with respect to the unique message structure that is specified in the characterising part of claim 1 of all the refused requests. Communication B explains that document D2 mentions HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) and SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) in the same context and that therefore the skilled person "would implement all the different features of said protocols, even if not explicitly listed in document D2. For instance HTTPS is implemented using SSL, that anticipates the new features of the filed sets of claims". This reasoning neither considers the claimed features in detail nor provides any understandable mapping between the features disclosed in document D2 and the features in the characterising part of the new requests. It also does not explain in detail why the skilled person would arrive without the exercise of inventive skills at "all the different features of said protocols". For example, it neither explains why the new features would be anticipated by SSL nor does it cite any document describing SSL.

In the present case, it is impossible to construct the applicable reasons by mosaicking various arguments from the file, as the parts of the file referenced in the decision do not in any way discuss the amended features of the refused requests in sufficient detail. Consequently, the Examining Division's reasoning lacks a logical chain of reasoning and thus cannot be reviewed by the Board.

8. Moreover, the appellant's detailed arguments in favour of the refused requests submitted with letter dated 16 January 2012 discuss the amended features related to the unique message structure in detail, but were not addressed in communication B (and could not be addressed in communication A). Consequently, the contested decision fails to take into account the relevant arguments put forward by the applicant.

9. Finally, the contested decision relies on document D2 as prior art, but there is no evidence on file for the alleged publication date of document D2. The appellant contested the alleged publication date during the written proceedings, but the decision is silent on this point, which is crucial for the inventive step reasoning. While it is true that the appellant did not argue on this point in the later stage of the examination proceedings, it at no point agreed to the alleged publication date, so that this highly relevant issue remained contested in the proceedings before the Examining Division. Thus, the contested decision should have provided reasons why the Examining Division nevertheless considered the alleged publication date of document D2 as proven. Hence, there is a further insufficiency in the contested decision's reasoning.

10. As argued by the appellant during the written proceedings (see section III. above), D2 carries not only a date of 1 April 2002, but also a date of 3 March 2008 and indicates that additions to it were made after the filing date of 13 February 2006 of the present application. Hence, an alleged publication date before the filing date is prima facie doubtful for document D2 as a whole, and the appellant had good reason to contest the alleged publication date.

In the written proceedings (see section IV. above), the Examining Division replied by providing reasons concerning the modifications made to document D2 over time, but no evidence for the public availability of the part of document D2 describing the Proxytunnel at the alleged publication date of 1 April 2002 was introduced.

Document D2 contains a description of a program called Proxytunnel and refers in this context to the following information: "Version: 1.2 (Mon Apr 1 10:04:48 CEST 2002)". The document itself does not refer to this information as the publication date of its content related to Proxytunnel. This date could merely indicate the version of the Proxytunnel program being described, for example. There is no evidence that the relevant content of document D2 was publicly available at the alleged publication date, or in what form. Hence, the Board considers that the alleged publication date of document D2 has not yet been established with a sufficient degree of certainty (see also decision T 2227/11 of 18 February 2016, point 2 of the reasons; decision T 545/08 of 24 March 2017, points 18 and 19 of the reasons).

Consequently, evidence concerning the public availability of the relevant content of document D2 before the effective filing date of the application should be provided if the document is to be used as prior art.

Remittal and reimbursement of the appeal fee

11. In view of the procedural deficiencies mentioned above, the case is to be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution (Article 11 RPBA). The Board considers the reimbursement of the appeal fee to be equitable in a situation where, as here, the reasons given for the contested decision were so unclear and so incomplete that no final decision could be taken in the appeal proceedings (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.

3. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility