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
        • 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. T 0801/13 27-02-2014
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0801/13 27-02-2014

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T080113.20140227
Date of decision
27 February 2014
Case number
T 0801/13
Petition for review of
-
Application number
01114582.8
IPC class
A61M 25/00
A61M 25/01
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 392.81 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

A ready-to-use urinary catheter assembly

Applicant name
Coloplast A/S
Opponent name

Hollister Limited

Dansac A/S

Board
3.2.02
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 76(1)
European Patent Convention Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 100
European Patent Convention Art 101(3)(a)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention Art 102(3) 1973
European Patent Convention R 25 1973
European Patent Convention Art 100 1973
Keywords

Amendments - added subject-matter (no)

Claims - clarity (yes)

Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0001/93
T 0468/09
T 1574/05
T 2125/10
T 0301/87
T 0853/02
T 1906/11
T 0667/08
Citing decisions
R 0008/17
T 1791/12
T 1178/13
T 2135/13
T 1477/15
T 0166/16
T 2600/17
T 1328/15

I. The appeal by the patent proprietor is against the decision of the opposition division posted on 18 January 2013 to revoke European patent

EP-B-1145729 because of non-compliance with Articles 123(2), 76 and 84 EPC.

II. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"1. A urinary catheter assembly comprising at least one urinary catheter (1) having on at least a part of its surface a hydrophilic surface layer (6) intended to produce a low-friction surface character of the catheter by treatment with a liquid swelling medium prior to use of the catheter and a catheter package (7, 16, 29, 34, 42, 46, 51, 51') made of a gas impermeable material and having a cavity (11,18, 39, 48, 53) for accommodation of the catheter (1, 58, 69), characterized in that the cavity accommodates said liquid swelling medium for provision of a ready-to-use catheter assembly."

III. The notice of appeal was filed on 27 March 2013 and the appeal fee paid on the same day. The statement of the grounds of appeal was filed on 28 May 2013.

IV. Application EP-A-1145729 leading to the patent at issue in the present appeal proceedings was filed as a divisional of EP-A-0923398 on 18 June 2001. The decision to grant was taken on 5 October 2001 for the parent application. The divisional application as originally filed was identical to the parent application as originally filed.

V. For the patent at stake in the present proceedings (based on the above-mentioned divisional application) a first decision was taken by the present Board (T 0468/09). In that decision the Board dealt with an objection under Article 100(b) EPC and concluded that disclosure was sufficient.

For the patent (EP-B-0923398) based on the parent application, in two decisions by the present Board (T 1574/05 and T 2125/10) it was concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 was inventive.

VI. Oral proceedings were held on 27 February 2014. The final requests of the parties were the following:

The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution on the basis of the main request, or in the alternative on the basis of one of auxiliary requests 1 to 8 all filed with letter dated 28 May 2013.

Respondent 1 (opponent 1) requested that the appeal be dismissed or, if the decision under appeal is set aside, that the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution. It further requested that auxiliary requests 1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8 filed with letter dated 28 May 2013 be not admitted in the proceedings.

Respondent 2 (opponent 2) requested that the appeal be dismissed or, if the decision under appeal is set aside, that the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution. It further requested that auxiliary requests 1 to 4, 6 and 8 filed with letter dated 28 May 2013 be not admitted in the proceedings.

VII. The wording of claim 1 according to the main request is the same as that of claim 1 according to the main request in the impugned decision (see above) and also the same as that of claim 1 of the main request in the former appeal proceedings (T 0468/09).

VIII. The arguments of the appellant can be summarised as follows:

Added subject-matter

The important test for determining whether the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC were respected was whether the person skilled in the art was presented with new information as compared to the content of the application as originally filed.

Looking at the embodiment described on page 4, lines 10 to 19, at claim 5 of the application as filed and even at figures 1 and 2, it was clear that the cavity and the compartment could form one single space. How that space was referred to was not decisive. For the person skilled in the art there was no additional technical information presented by the omission of one of the two words.

It had also to be noted that in the description page 4, lines 10 to 19, where it was stated that the compartment could be entirely integrated with the cavity, the requirement that the package as a whole be made of gas impermeable material was not present. The essential reason for the presence of a gas impermeable material was to avoid or prevent the evaporation of the liquid swelling medium. This was repeated several times in the description, for instance on page 10 where it was mentioned that the package had to have the ability to protect the coating from drying out. This feature that the package had to be made of gas impermeable material had to be read in the light of the technical context. In particular, the presence of one single space implied that the catheter with the activated surface or the liquid swelling medium had to be protected from drying out. Moreover the definition of gas impermeability was given on page 3, lines 20 to 26.

In the application as originally filed, e.g. in claim 1, it was clearly mentioned that the compartment accommodated the liquid swelling medium. As a consequence, when the compartment and the cavity formed a single space, the liquid swelling medium was accommodated in the cavity. This specific wording did not need to be present in the application as originally filed.

As to the feature of immediate activation, this would only be the case in one of the two embodiments covered by the claim, since when the spongy material was present there was no immediate activation. In other words, this limitation was not necessary.

Claim 5 of the application as originally filed recited one way of carrying out the general teaching which was mentioned on page 4. Therefore it was not necessary to take over all the other features somehow in relation with claim 5 as originally filed.

For the reasons above, the requirements of Article 76(1) and 123(2) EPC were met.

Clarity

Objections under Article 84 EPC were not mentioned in Article 100 EPC. In other words, lack of clarity was not a ground of opposition. It was established case law that clarity could only be examined in relation to the amendments made during the opposition proceedings and/or opposition appeal proceedings. Other features or other claims were not open to discussion. The objection relative to the omission of "compartment" in claim 1 or in claim 7 was not a result of the amendment, and therefore this objection was not admissible. It would also be inadmissible under Article 13(1) RPBA as late filed.

As to the objection raised in relation to the amendment introduced into claim 1, a definition of gas impermeable was given in the patent, so there was no justifiable objection under Article 84 EPC.

IX. The arguments of the respondents can be summarised as follows:

Added subject-matter

The description of the application as filed comprised two series of embodiments, a first series in which the package as a whole was made of gas impermeable material, and a second series in which the compartment was separated and in the latter case only the compartment walls were made of gas impermeable material. The present patent was only concerned with the first series, as illustrated for instance in figures 1, 4 and 6. However, all these embodiments had a compartment for the liquid swelling medium and a cavity for the catheter, and the package was said to be made as a whole of gas impermeable material.

According to decision G 1/93 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the purpose of Article 123(2) EPC was to avoid an applicant or patent proprietor improving its position by claiming subject-matter and obtaining protection for it although it was not disclosed in the application as filed. There was also ample case law which forbade the "cherry picking" (or intermediate generalisations). However, this was exactly what was happening here.

As a matter of fact, in present claim 1 of the main request the following features were missing:

throughout the description of the first series of embodiments it was mentioned that the package as a whole was made of gas impermeable material. It was further mentioned that a compartment was present and that the compartment was in a liquid flow communication with the cavity. There was no disclosure in the application as filed of any embodiment in which both elements were not present. In present claim 1 it was mentioned that the package was made of gas impermeable material. This was a different concept from the concept of the package as a whole being made of gas impermeable material, since it encompassed embodiments in which the package could only be partially made of gas impermeable material. In this way the patent proprietor was trying to broaden the scope of the patent in an undue manner.

Furthermore, the wording that the cavity accommodated the liquid swelling medium could not be found anywhere in the application as filed. Throughout the application as filed the liquid swelling medium was said to be in the compartment. Even if one relied on claim 5 as filed, in which the cavity and the compartment were said to be the same, a lot of features would still be missing from present claim 1, since claim 5 as filed was dependent on claims 3, 2 and 1.

Also in the embodiment recited on page 9, starting line 32, where it was mentioned that it was not necessary to use a spongy material to retain the liquid swelling medium, it was not mentioned that there was no compartment any more.

The same was true for the embodiment described in connection with and shown in figure 1. There again a cavity and a compartment were mentioned. The application as filed never mentioned that one of the cavity and the compartment was not present any more. On the contrary, the present wording of claim 1 also covered embodiments without any compartment or with the compartment but which was not integrated in the cavity.

The embodiment described on page 4, lines 10 to 19, in which the compartment was said to be integrated in the cavity, required additionally that the low friction surface was immediately activated during the manufacturing process.

The present wording even covered the situation in which the catheter was in the compartment or in an extra package within the cavity.

It was thus clear that when looking closely at what the patent proprietor was doing, it could only be concluded that it was trying to claim a different invention from those which were originally disclosed, and hence contravened Articles 76 and 123(2) EPC.

Clarity

The wording "made of" used in claim 1 became unclear when read in connection with the wording of claim 2 in which the package was said to be made "as a whole" of gas impermeable material. What could "made of" mean other than that the package as a whole was made of the latter material? Either the wording of claim 1 was unclear because it meant something different from "as a whole", or claim 2 was unnecessary.

In addition, the absence of the word compartment made the scope of the claim 1 unclear. Claim 7 was also unclear, because it used the wording "said compartment", but no compartment had been defined before in the claims. It was noted in this context that once an amended claim was examined, the opponents and/or the Board were entitled to raise lack of clarity in respect of every feature of the claim, not only the features linked to the amendment.

Hence, claim 1 had also to be rejected because it did not fulfil the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

The objection of lack of support raised in writing was not pursued.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Divisional application EP-A-1145729 on which the present patent is based was filed on 19 June 2001, when Rule 25 EPC 1973 applied and required the divisional application to be filed whilst the earlier European patent application was pending. Since the decision to grant was taken on 5 October 2001 for the parent application, the divisional was filed in due time.

3. The divisional application as originally filed is identical with the parent application as originally filed. In the following, for ease of citation (the paragraphs are numbered), the Board will refer to published divisional application EP-A-1145729.

The applications (divisional and parent) as originally filed being identical, any relevant interpretation of common content as decided in T 1574/05, T 2125/10 or T 0468/09 is binding for the present case.

Technical field of the invention and general content of the description as originally filed.

4. Urinary catheters are essentially of two types:

indwelling catheters which are meant to remain in the urethra for a longer period of time and which are in general inserted in hospital and intermittent catheters which are meant for introduction into the urethra in particular by the patient for a single emptying of the bladder and then taken out again after the emptying.

The intermittent catheters can further be subdivided into catheters being lubricated with a gel or another lubricant and catheters having a hydrophilic surface which needs to be activated (by water or saline solution) to demonstrate its low friction properties.

With prior-art catheter assemblies of this latter type the patient needs water, has to pour the water into the package cavity accommodating the catheter and wait for the swelling of the hydrophilic coating in order to obtain a catheter ready to use. Depending on the quality of the water used as liquid swelling medium, risks of infection exist.

The invention as presented in the introductory part of the description [0008] aims at allowing users to prepare the catheter for use wherever they are without the need to find water or to carry water with them in another receptacle, without the constraint of having to pour water into the package cavity containing the catheter, and without associated risk of infection.

The general concept of the invention is to propose an assembly comprising a catheter package for accommodation of the catheter and the liquid swelling medium (in a gas impermeable compartment) so that the liquid necessary to activate the low friction hydrophilic surface of the catheter is always available together with the catheter in that package. Of course the gas impermeability has to be adapted to the intended shelf-life time for such products [0010].

The original description presents two series of embodiments. In the general part of the description the first series of embodiments is described starting from paragraph [0011] and the second series of embodiments is described starting from paragraph [0022]. In the part of the description in which specific embodiments are described in more detail, embodiments of the first series are described starting from paragraph [0026] and figure 1, and embodiments of the second series are described starting from paragraph [0046] and figure 7.

The essential difference between the two series of embodiments is summarised, e.g. in paragraph [0045] which reads as follows:

"Whereas, in the embodiments described so far the compartment for the liquid swelling medium is in direct liquid flow communication with the cavity narrowly surrounding the catheter tube, which requires the package as a whole to be made of a gas-impermeable material, the compartment for the swelling liquid may alternatively be separated from the catheter cavity in such a way that the liquid flow communication there between is not established, until preparation of the catheter is performed prior to the intended use. Thereby, only the swelling medium compartment itself needs to have walls of a gas-impermeable material preventing leakage of the swelling medium by diffusion, whereas the wall parts of the package surrounding the catheter may be made of a relatively cheaper liquid tight material."

5. The wording of claim 1 according to the main request being the same as that of claim 1 according to the main request in the impugned decision and also the same as that of claim 1 of the main request in the former appeal proceedings (T 0468/09), the interpretation of claim 1 given in the decision of the Board in points 4.3 and 4.4 is relevant here. The Board considered that the wording of the claim covered both the embodiment of figures 1 and 2 (point 4.3) in which the catheter is in a cavity and the end portion of the cavity (or compartment) contains a spongy material retaining the liquid swelling medium until it is pressed out of the spongy material and flows into the cavity in order to prepare the low friction surface ([0011] to [0013] and [0029] to [0032]), and the embodiment not shown in the figures in which the liquid swelling medium is put into the cavity directly during the manufacturing process (point 4.4) without the presence of any spongy material ([0014] and[0037]).

The last part of claim 1, which requires that the cavity accommodates said liquid swelling medium for provision of a ready-to-use catheter assembly, does not define whether the liquid swelling medium is in a storing element (as the spongy material 14) in the cavity and/or whether the low-friction surface layer is in an activated state or not.

However, in the Board's opinion the wording of claim 1 clearly does not cover the embodiments in which the liquid swelling medium would be in a completely closed and separated compartment, as in the second series of embodiments in which only the compartment is made of gas impermeable material and not necessarily the rest of the package. This is expressed in claim 1 by the fact that the catheter package (should be) made of a gas impermeable material and by the fact that it is specified that the cavity accommodates said liquid swelling medium. In the context of the patent this can only mean that the liquid swelling medium is so to say without barrier in the cavity, as is the case in the embodiments according to figures 1 and 2 and when the swelling medium is injected into the cavity during the manufacturing process before welding together the sheets forming the package [0037].

Added subject-matter

6. The respondents/opponents considered that since throughout the description concerning the first series of embodiments it was mentioned that the package as a whole should be made of gas impermeable material, present claim 1 contravened Article 123(2) EPC, because it only recited that the package should be made of that material.

The Board does not share this opinion.

The Board shares the opinion expressed e.g. in T 1906/11 and T 0667/08 that, when deciding on issues of added subject-matter, it is essential to identify the actual teaching conveyed by the original disclosure, i.e. the technical information that the person skilled in the art would have derived from its content considered in its entirety. In other words, a strict literal support is not what is required by Article 123(2) EPC. What is required is that when read by the person skilled in the art there is no new technical teaching in the amended version as compared to the application as filed.

In the present case it is readily apparent that the application as filed makes a clear difference between on the one hand the embodiments of the first series according to which the catheter and the liquid swelling medium are in a single space within the package (be it with or without storage body for the liquid swelling medium) and in which single space the liquid swelling medium can freely flow, and on the other hand the embodiments of the second series in which the liquid swelling medium is isolated from the catheter in a separate compartment and cannot flow into the cavity containing the catheter until the compartment is somehow broken or opened.

It is further clear that the function of the gas impermeability of the material used is to avoid evaporation of the liquid swelling medium. This is explained in paragraph [0010]: "The term "gas impermeable" material should be understood in this context to mean any material that will be sufficiently tight against diffusion by evaporation of the actual liquid swelling medium for a period..." but also in paragraph [0037] where it is mentioned that: "Due to the gas-impermeability of the package 7 it is not necessary to use a body 14 of spongy material to accommodate the liquid swelling medium... The package will itself prevent the coating from drying out and preserve the low friction character of the surface coating to keep the catheter in a ready to use condition at all times." Or in paragraph [0014] it is indicated that: "The gas-impermeable walls of the package will then protect the activated coating from drying out and provide a long time preservation of the low friction surface characteristic of the catheter until the moment of actual use." By contrast and again in paragraph [0045] it is explicitly mentioned in relation to the second series of embodiments that: "Thereby, only the swelling medium compartment itself needs to have walls of a gas-impermeable material preventing leakage of the swelling medium by diffusion, whereas the wall parts of the package surrounding the catheter may be made of a relatively cheaper liquid tight material."

Hence, for the person skilled in the art it is amply clear from the original description that the technical function of the gas impermeable material is to prevent evaporation of the liquid swelling medium for a predetermined length of time before use of the catheter. For this reason this material is used everywhere for the package, or for the compartment, where there is a risk of evaporation or diffusion of the liquid swelling medium. In other words, this material is used along the whole space enclosing the catheter and the liquid swelling medium in the first series of embodiments (one described option to achieve that being to start from two sheets of a gas impermeable thermoplastic film material ([0029]) and to weld them together) but only around the compartment containing the liquid swelling medium in the second series of embodiments.

Hence, in the opinion of the Board when claim 1 recites that the package (should be) made of gas impermeable material, for the person skilled in the art it means that everywhere where there is a risk of evaporation of the liquid swelling medium the package should be made of such material. Nothing else can be meant by this wording and this is fully supported by the application as filed, as demonstrated above.

7. The respondents/opponents also submitted that there was no basis in the application as filed for the feature that the cavity accommodates the liquid swelling medium. It was always the compartment which did so. And even in the case of a single space, part of the space could be the compartment and another part the cavity.

The Board does not share this opinion.

In paragraph [0014] of the application as filed it is mentioned that "the compartment for the liquid swelling medium may be entirely integrated with the cavity for the catheter...". Claim 5 of the application as filed includes the same teaching, namely "that said cavity constitutes itself said compartment...".

In the specific embodiment according to figures 1 and 2 the part where the spongy material is stored is called the widened end section 12 or compartment ([0029] to [0033]) and in the embodiment without spongy material ([0037]) it is not mentioned whether the end section still exists or not. Moreover, it is also apparent in figures 1 and 2 that the "cavity" and the "end section or compartment" form a single space.

Therefore, in all these embodiments the "cavity" and the "compartment" form a single space. It follows that when the liquid swelling medium is in this single space, it is within the cavity and/or within the compartment. In such a case, the Board considers it pointless and even confusing to draw an artificial distinction between a part of the space which would be called "cavity" and another part of the space which would be called "compartment". All the more because the general statements in [0014] and in claim 5 do not specify any particular relationship between the two; only in figure 1 is the one shown behind the other. Moreover, it also is self-evident that there is liquid flow communication between the "compartment" and the "cavity", as there is only one space.

The present wording that the cavity accommodates the liquid swelling medium therefore does not contain any teaching not already present in the mentioned embodiments.

8. The respondents/opponents further objected that compared to the version of originally filed claim 1, present claim 1 included added subject-matter since the feature that the package includes a compartment having walls of a gas impermeable material had been deleted and replaced by the catheter package (should be) made of a gas impermeable material.

As already mentioned above, for the person skilled in the art, one teaching of the application as filed is that gas impermeability must be present where the liquid swelling medium may evaporate. Therefore it is not necessary to mention the walls of the compartment, since claim 1 covers only embodiments in which the compartment and the cavity form a single space. Thus, the walls of the compartment and the package surrounding that space are the same.

In addition, in the detailed description of the embodiments of the first series the walls of the package are never mentioned.

In paragraph [0029] it is mentioned that the package 7 formed by two sheets 8 and 9 of a gas impermeable thermoplastic film material such as...

Nothing is mentioned about walls of a compartment.

In [0037] it is mentioned that: Due to the gas-impermeability of the package 7 it is not necessary to use a body 14 of spongy material to accommodate the liquid swelling medium. Further down in the paragraph it is mentioned that: The package will itself prevent the coating from drying out and preserve the low friction character of the surface coating to keep the catheter in a ready to use condition at all times.

Hence, as already explained, in these embodiments it is the package which fulfils the function of avoiding the drying out of the low friction surface coating or of evaporation of the liquid swelling medium. The walls and their gas impermeability do not have to be mentioned in claim 1.

9. The respondents/opponents considered that even if claim 5 of the application as filed mentioned that the cavity itself might constitute the compartment, other features were mentioned in claim 5 and in the claims on which claim 5 was dependent, so that present claim 1 also contravened Article 123(2) EPC because it did not recite these other features. The same applied to paragraph [0014] mentioning that the compartment could be integrated with the cavity but also reciting other additional features such as the immediate activation of the hydrophilic surface layer after completion of the production process.

The Board does not share this analysis. For the embodiments in which there is one single space for the cavity and the compartment, present claim 1 corresponds almost word-for-word to claim 1 of the application as filed.

In claim 1 of the application as filed the compartment was said to accommodate the liquid swelling medium and now it is the cavity which is said to do so. As explained above, both statements are equivalent when the cavity and the compartment form one single space. And as further explained above, when there is a single space the walls of the compartment (which are said to be gas impermeable in claim 1 of the application as filed) and the walls of the package enclosing that single space are merged. Thus, for the specific case where the cavity and the compartment form a single space, which was already covered by the wording of claim 1 of the application as filed, the wording of claim 1 has been specified. Moreover, at least for the reason that several embodiments described in the application as filed exhibit this feature of a single space for the cavity and the compartment, there is no need to take over other features of one of the embodiments to satisfy the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. This would be an undue restriction of the scope of the claim, in view of the more general teaching.

10. Therefore claim 1 according to the main request satisfies Article 123(2) EPC. Since the divisional application as originally filed was identical to the parent application as originally filed, claim 1 according to the main request also complies with Article 76(1) EPC.

Clarity

11. The respondents/opponents submitted that the wording of claim 1 was not clear, since it was not clear what was meant by the wording "made of gas impermeable material" used in claim 1, especially when read in conjunction with claim 2 which required the package "as a whole" to be made of such material. Additionally, since once a claim had been amended a lack of clarity objection could be raised against any feature, it was further considered that claim 1 was not clear because the compartment was not mentioned and claim 7 was not clear because it mentioned "said compartment" but no compartment was ever defined before in the claims.

The Board would like to point out the legal framework in this context.

Article 100 EPC and Article 100 EPC 1973 both mention the same exhaustive list of the grounds for opposition: "Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that:"(emphasis added). The list of grounds which follows does not include Article 84 EPC or any wording equivalent to the wording of that article. Clarity and support as defined in Article 84 EPC therefore do not form a ground for opposition and hence cannot be used against the claims of a granted patent to start opposition proceedings.

Article 101(3)(a) EPC and Article 102(3) EPC 1973 both indicate that "If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided..."(emphasis added).

Even if this wording might give the impression that all parts of an amended patent can be objected to as not meeting the requirements of any article or rule of the EPC and hence, in our case, that any feature of any claim could be objected to under Article 84 EPC, it is established case law that this wording has to be understood as meaning that objections based on the requirements of articles other than Article 100 EPC must arise out of the amendments made. This means in particular that a lack of clarity objection cannot be raised against a feature already in the claim of the patent as granted (e.g. T 0301/87 (OJ EPO 1990, 335), T 0853/02, reasons 3.1.1) which is not affected by amendments made in opposition proceedings.

It follows that the objection of lack of clarity raised against the absence of a compartment in claim 1 or against the wording of claim 7 is not allowable, i.e. is not to be examined.

Concerning the lack of clarity objection in relation to the present wording "made of" in claim 1 as compared to the former wording "as a whole made of", the Board has explained above that in its opinion it is clear to the person skilled in the art having read the patent as a whole that the present wording is to be understood as meaning that the gas impermeable material has to be present everywhere where evaporation or diffusion of the liquid swelling medium has to be prevented. In other words, it means that parts of the package not concerned by possible evaporation of the liquid swelling medium may be made in another material. The second wording is then self-explanatory in that it requires the whole of the package, or every part of the package, to be made of gas impermeable material.

Thus, claim 1 of the main request fulfils the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

12. Since all parties requested that the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution, and no circumstances are apparent from the file for doing otherwise, the Board sees no reason not to allow this request.

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 on the basis of the main request filed with letter dated 28 May 2013.

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