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/t160248eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0248/16 31-03-2017
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0248/16 31-03-2017

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T024816.20170331
Date of decision
31 March 2017
Case number
T 0248/16
Petition for review of
-
Application number
01948261.1
IPC class
A61Q 13/00
A61K 8/04
A61K 8/11
A61K 8/27
A61K 8/37
A61K 8/73
A61L 9/04
C11D 3/50
D06M 13/00
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 382.22 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

FRAGRANCE COMPOSITIONS

Applicant name
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Opponent name

UNILEVER PLC / UNILEVER NV

Henkel AG & Co. KGaA

Beiersdorf AG

Intellectual Property - Patente

Board
3.3.10
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)

Main and auxiliary requests 1 to 7: inventive step (no) - obvious alternative

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0220/83
T 0213/85
T 0922/05
T 0095/10
Citing decisions
T 1645/16

I. The Appellant (Opponent 3) lodged an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division which found that European patent No. 1 289 485 in amended form met the requirements of the EPC. Claim 1 of the main request maintained by the Opposition Division reads as follows:

"A composition comprising:

(a) a fragrance oil comprising:

(i) top note perfume raw material, or mixture of perfume raw materials, with a boiling point of less than, or equal to, about 250°C at 1 atmosphere pressure;

(ii) middle or base note perfume raw material, or mixture of perfume raw materials, with a boiling point of greater than 250°C at 1 atmosphere pressure

(b) an entrapment material which is selected from cyclic oligosaccharides;

(c) greater than 50% by weight of ethanol;

wherein the weight ratio of the top note perfume raw materials to middle or base note perfume raw materials within the fragrance oil is in the range from 1:20 to 20:1, and wherein, water, if present, comprises from 0.1 to 40% by weight of total composition."

II. Notice of Opposition had been filed by the Appellant and the parties as of right (Opponents 1 and 2) requesting revocation of the patent as granted in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC). Inter alia the following documents were submitted in opposition proceedings:

(1) EP-A-303 461,

(7) "Controlled Release Technology and Delivery Systems", Vol. 114, No. 5/May 1999, pages 53 to 60, and

(17) WO-A-98/52527.

III. The Opposition Division found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the then pending main request was sufficiently disclosed and inventive, document (1) or document (17) being considered to represent the closest prior art, document (7) not suggesting the use of cyclic oligosaccharides in ethanol-based fragrances with a prolonged top note character.

IV. With letter dated 22 September 2016, the Respondent (Patent proprietor) filed auxiliary requests 1 to 7 and submitted that all amendments to the claims fulfilled the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differs from claim 1 of the main request only in that the weight ratio of the top note perfume raw materials to middle or base note perfume raw materials within the fragrance oil is in the range from 1:10 to 10:1.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of the main request only in that the composition comprises from 5 to 40% by weight of total composition of water.

Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 3 and 4 differs from claim 1 of the main request only in that the composition comprises from 2% to 8%, by weight, of entrapment material.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 (and 4) only in that the composition comprises from 2.5 to 25%, by weight, of the fragrance oil.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 differs from claim 1 of the main request only in that the fragrance oil comprises from 25% to 60%, by weight of fragrance oil, of top note perfume raw materials.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 7 is a combination of claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 5 and 6.

V. The Appellant argued that the subject-matter of all requests was not inventive and that in view of either document (1) or document (17) as the closest state of the art, the problem to be solved by the invention was merely the provision of alternative fragrance compositions. Document (7) taught that fragrance compounds could be encapsulated within cyclodextrins, thereby providing a sustained release of fragrance on the body. Document (1) did not teach away from using cyclodextrins for this purpose, but rather taught that ß-cyclodextrin was in fact a conventional encapsulating material. The Appellant no longer contested sufficiency of disclosure.

VI. The Respondent requested that the Appellant's appeal be rejected as inadmissible for failure to specify the legal or factual reasons on which the case for setting aside the Opposition's Division's decision was based.

The subject-matter of all requests was inventive, document (17) and not document (1) representing the closest prior art, document (1) being concerned with providing a sensory signal and not with prolonging fragrance life. Document (7) did indeed suggest cyclodextrins for encapsulating fragrance compositions for increasing the staying power of fragrance products, but only in the context of solid consumer product compositions or aqueous solutions. Document (1), although referring to the use of inter alia cyclodextrins as encapsulating materials, in fact taught away from the use of ß-cyclodextrin on the basis that it purportedly leached perfume over a period of one month.

VII. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

The Respondent requested that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible or at least be dismissed i.e. that the patent be maintained in an amended form as held allowable by the Opposition Division (main request), or alternatively that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in an amended form on the basis of any of the Auxiliary Requests 1 to 7 filed with letter dated 22 September 2016.

The parties as of right made no submissions as to the substance of the appeal, nor did they file any requests.

VIII. Oral proceedings were held on 31 March 2017 in the absence of both parties as of right, who, after having been duly summoned, informed the Board that they would not attend. At the end of the oral proceedings, the decision of the Board was announced.

1. Admissibility of appeal

1.1 In accordance with Article 108, third sentence and Rule 99(2) EPC, the statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based. Decisions of the Boards of Appeal have established the requirement that the grounds for appeal should not be confined to an assertion that the contested decision is incorrect, but should state the legal and/or factual reasons which constitute the basis of its challenge to the validity of the decision. Grounds sufficient for the admissibility of an appeal must address one or more of the reasons on which the contested decision was based. Here it is not a matter of whether the arguments put forward are actually effective, but rather that circumstances are demonstrated which by their nature may in principle upset the reasons for the decision (cf. decisions T 220/83, OJ EPO 1986, 249, point 4 of the reasons and T 213/85, OJ EPO 1987, 482, point 3 of the reasons).

1.2 In the present case, the contested decision was based on inter alia the positive finding with respect to inventive step of the subject-matter of the then pending main request, on the basis of which the contested patent was maintained. The Appellant, which was adversely affected by the decision to maintain the patent on the basis of said request, addressed inter alia this ground in its statement of grounds of appeal, identifying either document (1) or document (17) as closest prior art, determining in the light thereof the technical problem which the invention addresses, and then explaining why the proposed solution to said objective problem was obvious in the light of document (7) or document (1). The Appellant hereby provided reasons as to why the claimed subject-matter was not inventive and consequently as to why the disputed decision should be set aside, such that the requirement of Article 108, third sentence and Rule 99(2) EPC is met.

1.3 In the Respondent's submissions in support of its argument that the Appellant had failed to state legal or factual reasons against the contested decision, it stated that the Appellant contested the Opposition Division's findings in relation to two of the three stages of the problem-solution approach, namely by reformulating the problem and arguing that the solution to said reformulated problem was obvious, but failed to engage with the Opposition Division's reasoning, such that it was not possible to establish why the Appellant regarded the Opposition Division's decision to be incorrect. The Appellant had thus failed to establish a causal relationship between the reasons in the grounds of appeal and the Opposition Division's findings.

However, in the present case, the Opposition Division found the claims of the then pending main request to be inventive over a combination of either document (1) or (17) with document (7) or (1), such that by arguing that the subject-matter was not inventive on the basis of these documents, the Appellant has indeed indicated the reasons for setting aside the contested decision.

1.4 The Respondent cited decisions T 922/05 and T 95/10 (neither published in OJ EPO) in support of its argumentation that the appeal was not admissible. However, in the case underlying the decision T 922/05, the Appellant-Patentee filed a new set of claims together with its grounds of appeal and argued merely that it was clear that the subject-matter now claimed was not known from any of the cited prior art documents, such that the Article 100(a) EPC objections were overcome, without, however, explaining why. Said case is thus not relevant, because the present Appellant has indeed provided arguments, albeit succinct ones, as to why the subject-matter of the patent as maintained is not inventive, whereas in the case underlying the decision T 922/05, it was merely stated that "the subject-matter now claimed was not known". In the case underlying the decision T 95/10, the Appellant-Patentee had merely argued in its grounds of appeal that the Opposition Division had not taken the comments filed by the Patentee before the Opposition Division into consideration, such that it had violated the Patentee's right to be heard. The Board found that the appeal was inadmissible, because the Appellant had not addressed any of the Opposition Division's argumentation at all, whereas in the present case, argumentation as to why the claimed subject-matter is not inventive, has indeed been provided.

1.5 Hence, the Appellant's appeal is admissible.

Main request

2. Inventive step

2.1 The present invention is directed to fragrance compositions having prolonged top note character (see paragraph [0001] of the patent in suit).

2.2 Document (17) relates to perfume fixatives to enhance fragrance life of inter alia ethanol-based leave-on skin products (see page 1, first two paragraphs). Example 1 discloses a cologne comprising a fragrance composition with a ratio of top note to middle or base note perfume raw materials falling within the range from 1:20 to 20:1, ca. 80 wt.% ethanol, ca. 18 wt.% water and 1 wt.% perfume fixatives. The Opposition Division considered documents (17) and (1) to be equally close, but the Respondent argued that document (17) was closer to the invention than document (1), since document (17), like the patent in suit, was concerned with enhancing fragrance life, whereas document (1) was concerned with providing a sensory signal. Moreover, document (1) was concerned with capsules and not inclusion complexes, as in the patent in suit.

2.2.1 Thus, the Board considers, in agreement with both the Appellant and the Respondent, that Example 1 of document (17) represents the closest state of the art for the subject-matter of the main request and, hence, takes this document as the starting point when assessing inventive step.

2.3 In view of this state of the art, the problem underlying the subject-matter of the main request, as formulated by the Respondent, was the provision of alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character.

2.4 As the solution to this problem, claim 1 of the main request proposes a fragrance composition comprising an entrapment material selected from cyclic oligosaccharides.

2.5 The Appellant and the Respondent were divided as to whether or not the available evidence convincingly showed that the problem defined in point 2.3 above was successfully solved.

2.5.1 To demonstrate that the fragrance compositions as defined in claim 1 of the main request achieved a prolonged noticeable top note character, the Respondent relied on the statement in paragraph [0085] of the patent in suit, which indicated that when examples VIII-XV were applied to the substrate, the light, fresh, fruity, citrus, green or delicate floral "top note" fragrance characters could still be determined at least two hours after application. By contrast, the same long lasting "top note" effect was not achieved when control compositions, comprising the same fragrance oil but without the entrapment material, were applied to a substrate.

2.5.2 The Appellant argued that it had not been convincingly shown that the problem had been solved, since no direct comparison with the closest state of the art had been carried out.

2.5.3 However, in view of the fact that the problem merely consists of the provision of alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character, and it has been shown that the top note fragrance characters of the compositions according to the invention could still be determined at least two hours after application, the Board holds that it is credible that the problem is solved.

2.6 Finally, it remains to be decided whether or not the proposed solution to the objective problem underlying the patent in suit is obvious in view of the state of the art.

2.6.1 Document (7), which provides an overview of controlled release technology and delivery systems, teaches in the section entitled "Polymeric Materials" (see page 54), that cyclodextrins have been used as "hosts" for "guest" molecules for the past two decades, the resulting inclusion compounds having been used in the cosmetic industry. In the section entitled "Fragrance longevity" (see page 58), it is stated that delivery systems can be used to increase the staying power of fragranced products. More particularly, it teaches that fragrance compounds can be encapsulated within cyclodextrins, the natural moisture of the skin being sufficient to dissolve the cyclodextrin-fragrance complex, thereby providing a sustained release of fragrance on the body. It was thus well within the routine activity of the skilled person, faced with the mere problem of providing alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character, to replace the perfume fixatives of document (17) with a cyclodextrin, without having to exercise inventive step. For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is obvious.

2.6.2 The Respondent argued that although document (7) taught cyclodextrins for encapsulating fragrance compositions in order to increase the staying power of fragrance products, this teaching was restricted to solid consumer product compositions or aqueous solutions. More particularly, in the section entitled "Polymeric Materials", it was taught that in aqueous solutions, hydrophobic guests were forced into the cavity of cyclodextrins through a hydrophilic-hydrophobic interaction. The Respondent submitted that when such a hydrophilic aqueous solution was replaced with an ethanolic solution, in view of the higher hydrophobicity of ethanol as compared to water, the skilled person would have expected the ethanol to compete with the fragrance to enter the cavity, such that the skilled person would not have reasonably expected that a fragrance and cyclic oligosaccharide in ethanolic solution would also produce prolonged noticeable top note character.

The Board notes, however, that the fragrance compositions of claim 1 of the main request may contain up to 40wt.% of water, such that the fragrance and cyclic oligosaccharide are in fact in an ethanol-water, i.e. a polar, solution. In addition, ethanol, in view of its hydroxy group and very short alkyl chain, can hardly be considered to be hydrophobic and is well-known to mix completely with water. The Board thus holds that the Respondent's argumentation is merely speculation as to what the skilled person at the time of filing of the patent in suit might have expected, the Respondent not having provided a document suggesting that hydrophobic molecules would not form inclusion complexes in cyclic oligosaccharides in ethanolic solution.

2.6.3 The Respondent also submitted that document (1) (see page 4, lines 52 to 55) taught away from the use of ß-cyclodextrin as an encapsulating material on the basis that on extraction with ethanol, it leached perfume over a period of one month.

2.6.4 However, as argued by the Respondent itself (see point 2.2 above), document (1) is concerned with providing a sensory signal and describes capsules, not inclusion complexes, such that the Board holds that the skilled person, seeking to solve the problem of providing alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character, would not even have turned to this document.

2.6.5 The Respondent also argued that document (7) (see end of section entitled "Polymeric Materials" on page 55) teaches the use of cyclodextrins in cosmetics to trap malodorous molecules and not fragrances, and that document (7) did not specifically teach that the top note character of the fragrance would be prolonged.

However, said section teaches that hydrophobic guests are forced into the cavity of cyclodextrins through a hydrophilic-hydrophobic interaction (see point 2.6.2 above), a cyclodextrin molecule neither distinguishing between hydrophobic guests which are fragrant or malodorous (whether a compound has a pleasant odour or is malodorous being in any case a purely subjective matter), nor between top, middle or base note perfume raw materials, said top, middle and base note perfume raw materials differing in terms of their boiling points and not their hydrophobicity. Thus, the skilled person would not conclude from document (7) that cyclodextrins would not be suitable for trapping fragrances, nor that the top note character of the resulting entrapped fragrance would not be prolonged.

2.7 For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 as maintained by the Opposition Division, i.e. of the main request, is not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request 1

3. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the weight ratio of the top note perfume raw materials to middle or base note perfume raw materials within the fragrance oil is in the range from 1:10 to 10:1.

3.1 The Respondent argued that the ratio of the top note perfume raw materials to middle or base note perfume raw materials in Example 1 of document (17) was ca. 13:1, such that it was unexpected that when the maximum ratio of top to middle or base note perfume raw materials was reduced to 10:1, that a prolonged noticeable top note character was still obtained.

However, the Board holds that even when the maximum ratio of top to middle or base note perfume raw materials is reduced to 10:1, the skilled person would still have expected that the top note perfume raw materials present would be prolonged, the cyclic oligosaccharides not distinguishing between top, middle or base note perfume raw materials (see point 2.6.5 above). Therefore, the weight ratio is merely arbitrary, the act of picking out at random such a range being within the routine activity of the skilled person faced with the mere problem of providing alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character.

3.2 Thus, auxiliary request 1 is also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request 2

4. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the composition comprises from 5 to 40% by weight of total composition of water.

4.1 However, since the closest prior art document (17) already discloses compositions having ca. 18% by weight of total composition of water (see Example 1), this amendment cannot contribute to inventiveness of the subject-matter of claim 1 of this request vis-à-vis this document.

4.2 Thus, auxiliary request 2 is also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary requests 3 and 4

5. Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 3 and 4 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the composition comprises from 2% to 8%, by weight, of entrapment material.

5.1 The Respondent argued that Example 1 of document (17) comprised merely 1% by weight of perfume fixatives, said document teaching (see page 4, penultimate paragraph) that higher levels of said materials were discernible by the user, which was undesirable.

However, the skilled person would select the amount of entrapment material to be used by standard experiments depending on the olfactory effect wished to be achieved. Indeed document (17) itself teaches that the most effective level of fixative depends on the nature of the perfume and the amount in which this perfume is used, "and this can be determined by experiment (see page 5, second full paragraph). Document (7) does not teach that cyclodextrins are discernible by the user, such that the skilled person would not consider that he may not use more than 1% by weight thereof in a fragrance composition.

5.2 Thus, auxiliary requests 3 and 4 are also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request 5

6. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 (and 4) in that the composition comprises from 2.5 to 25%, by weight, of the fragrance oil.

6.1 In this request, both the weight amounts of entrapment material and fragrance oil are defined. As outlined in point 5.1 above, it is well within the standard practice of the skilled person to determine experimentally how much entrapment material per amount of perfume fragrance is required. Indeed, the ratios for the amount of perfume:fixative of 2:1 and 9:1 specifically disclosed in document (17) (see paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5) fall within the weight ratio range for these two components (0.31:1 to 12.5:1) which result from the absolute weight amounts defined in claim 1 of auxiliary request 5.

6.2 Thus, auxiliary request 5 is also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request 6

7. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the fragrance oil comprises from 25% to 60%, by weight of fragrance oil, of top note perfume raw materials.

7.1 The Respondent submitted that the fragrance oil of Example 1 of document (17) comprised 93% by weight of fragrance oil, of top note perfume raw materials, such that it was unexpected that a prolonged noticeable top note character was still obtained by the composition according to claim 1 of auxiliary request 6, which comprised a lower amount of top note perfume raw materials.

However, for the same reasons given in point 3.1 above, said weight amount is merely arbitrary, the act of picking out at random such an amount being within the routine activity of the skilled person faced with the mere problem of providing alternative fragrance compositions having a prolonged noticeable top note character.

7.2 Thus, auxiliary request 6 is also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request 7

8. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 7 is a combination of claim 1 of each of auxiliary requests 5 and 6.

8.1 In this request, the weight amounts of entrapment material, fragrance oil, and top note perfume raw materials in said fragrance oil, are defined. For the reasons given in point 6.1 above for auxiliary request 5, the weight ratio of entrapment material to fragrance oil is not inventive, and for the reasons given in point 7.1 above for auxiliary request 6, nor is the amount of top note perfume raw materials in said fragrance oil. The Respondent has not provided any arguments as to why the combination of these three features results in an inventive step, and the Board also fails to identify an inventive step therein.

8.2 Thus, auxiliary request 7 is also not allowable for lack of inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

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