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/t191738eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 1738/19 16-11-2022
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 1738/19 16-11-2022

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T173819.20221116
Date of decision
16 November 2022
Case number
T 1738/19
Petition for review of
-
Application number
11838677.0
IPC class
C08L 61/00
C08G 2/00
C08K 7/02
C08L 1/02
B05C 3/02
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 381.17 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

METHOD OF USING ALDEHYDE-FUNCTIONALIZED POLYMERS TO INCREASE PAPERMACHINE PERFORMANCE AND ENHANCE SIZING

Applicant name
Nalco Company
Opponent name
BASF SE
Board
3.3.03
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(2)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art
Keywords

Inventive step - (main request: no)

Auxiliary request - submitted with the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal - not substantiated - taken into account (no)

Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0939/92
T 0687/15
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal of the opponent is against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division concerning maintenance of European Patent No. 2 635 634 in amended form on the basis of the claims of the first auxiliary request filed with letter of 25 January 2019.

II. The following documents were inter alia cited in the decision under appeal:

D1: WO 00/15906

D2: WO 2008/141093 A1

D3: EP 0 151 994 A2

III. In that decision, the following conclusions relevant to the present decision were reached by the opposition division:

- The first auxiliary request met the requirements of Rule 80 EPC, Article 123(2)(3) EPC and Article 84 EPC.

- Considering that no objection of lack of novelty was raised by the opponent against the first auxiliary request and that also the opposition division had no concerns in that respect, novelty of the first auxiliary request was acknowledged.

- The subject-matter of the first auxiliary request was inventive when taking example 4 of D2 as the closest prior art, even in the light of the teaching of D1 and D3.

For these reasons, the patent as amended according to the first auxiliary request was held to meet the requirements of the EPC.

IV. The opponent (appellant) lodged an appeal against that decision.

V. With their rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal, the patent proprietor (respondent) filed a set of claims as first auxiliary request.

VI. The parties were summoned to oral proceedings and a communication indicating specific issues to be discussed at the oral proceedings was then sent to the parties.

VII. With letter of 29 September 2022 the appellant withdrew the request for the reimbursement of the appeal fee made in their statement of grounds of appeal.

VIII. Oral proceedings were held on 16 November 2022 in the presence of both parties (via videoconference).

IX. The final requests of the parties were as follows:

(a) The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the European patent be revoked.

(b) The respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed (main request) or, in the alternative, that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the first auxiliary request filed with the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal.

X. Claim 1 of the main request read as follows:

"1. A composition comprising a sizing mixture having a stabilizing amount of one or more aldehyde-functionalized polymers having at least one aldehyde-reactive monomer species present in any amount and in any combination in said aldehyde-functionalized polymer, said monomer species selected from: nonionic monomers; cationic monomers; anionic monomers; zwitterionic monomers; and any combination of the foregoing; and a sizing amount of a sizing composition, wherein the one or more aldehyde-functionalized polymers have a weight average molecular weight of at least about 50,000 g/mole, wherein the sizing composition comprises rosin sizes, alkylene ketene dimers, alkenyl succinic anhydrides, and combinations thereof, and wherein the one or more aldehyde-functionalized polymers is stably present in an amount from 2 wt% to 33 wt%, based on total weight of the composition."

XI. Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differed from claim 1 of the main request in that the following feature was added at the end of the claim:

"and wherein the composition further comprises a solids content ranging from about 0.1 to about 10 wt.% in an aqueous phase".

XII. The appellant's arguments, in so far as they are pertinent for the present decision, may be derived from the reasons for the decision below. They are essentially as follows:

(a) The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request did not involve an inventive step when starting from example 4 of D2 as the closest prior art, optionally in combination with D3.

(b) The first auxiliary request was not substantiated in the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal and should not be taken into account pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA. In addition, it should also not be admitted pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

XIII. The respondent's arguments, in so far as they are pertinent for the present decision, may be derived from the reasons for the decision below. They are essentially as follows:

(a) The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request involved an inventive step when starting from example 4 of D2 as the closest prior art, even taking D3 into account.

(b) Considering that the first auxiliary request was self-explanatory, it was neither justified that it be not taken into account pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA, nor that it be not admitted pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

Main request

1. The operative main request is the first auxiliary request on which the decision under appeal is based, which was held by the opposition division to involve an inventive step starting from example 4 of D2 as the closest prior art.

2. Article 56 EPC

2.1 At the oral proceedings before the Board, the following preliminary conclusions regarding inventive step that were indicated in the Board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 (sections 7.1 to 7.3 and 7.4.1.b) remained undisputed:

- Example 4 of D2 constituted the closest prior art for the subject-matter of operative claim 1;

- The subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the sizing composition prepared in example 4 of D2 in the following features:

(a) the aldehyde-functionalised polymer defined therein should have a weight average molecular weight of at least 50,000 g/mole (which was not shown to be disclosed in D2, in particular for the aldehyde-functionalised terpolymer used in example 4 thereof, and for which no additional information was present on file); and

(b) the aldehyde-functionalised polymer should be present in an amount ranging from 2 to 33 wt%, based on the total weight of the composition (which was not shown to be disclosed for the aldehyde-functionalised terpolymer used in example 4 of D2).

- The objective technical problem solved over example 4 of D2 resided in the provision of an alternative sizing composition comprising an aldehyde-functionalised polymer as an emulsion stabiliser in paper and paperboard production.

- The weight average molecular weight according to above distinguishing feature (a) was arbitrary and did not contribute to an inventive step.

2.2 Under these circumstances, it remains only to be assessed if it was obvious to provide an alternative to the sizing composition of example 4 of D2 by using in that composition the aldehyde-functionalised terpolymer of example 4 of D2 in an amount ranging from 2 to 33 wt%, based on the total weight of the composition (as specified in operative claim 1 and according to feature (b) identified above).

2.3 In that respect, the parties' arguments were all related to the indication in D2 that the terpolymer taught therein - which corresponds to the aldehyde-functionalized polymer according to operative claim 1 - could be present in amount from "about 0.1 to about 1.5 weight %" (D2: first to fourth lines of paragraph 8 on page 3; second to fifth lines of paragraph 19 on page 7). In addition, the following two issues were in dispute between the parties during the appeal proceedings:

(a) Whether the maximum amount of "1.5 wt%" terpolymer disclosed in paragraphs 8 and 19 of D2 was encompassed by the range of "from 2 wt% to 33 wt%" specified in claim 1 of the main request; and

(b) Whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to solve the problem posed by using a polymer as defined in operative claim 1 in an amount of e.g. 2 wt%, even if said amount were understood to be higher than the highest amount disclosed in paragraph 19 of D2 as held by the respondent.

However, in view of the negative decision reached by the Board in respect of inventive step based on issue (b), which is taken independently of the outcome in regard of issue (a) (see in particular sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 below), there is no need to address issue (a) in the present decision.

2.4 Regarding the question whether or not it was obvious for the skilled person to solve the problem posed by using a polymer as defined in operative claim 1 in an amount of e.g. 2 wt% (issue (b) above), the established case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO is that the answer to the question as to what a person skilled in the art would have done depends on the technical result (s)he wished to obtain (see e.g. T 939/92, OJ EPO 1996, 309: point 2.5.3 of the reasons; see also Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 10th edition, 2022, I.D.5).

2.4.1 In the case in hand, it must therefore be considered that the skilled person is deemed to be merely seeking to provide further sizing compositions for paper and paperboard production in alternative to the one of example 4 of D2 but is not even wishing to necessarily keep all properties obtained with said composition of D2 at the same level. In that respect, although D2 discloses in paragraphs 8 and 19 thereof an upper limit of "about 1.5 wt%" for the terpolymer, it is derivable from the wording used in these passages (paragraph 8: "the ... emulsion can comprise .."; paragraph 19: "For instance, the emulsion can contain ...", emphasis in italics by the Board) that these indications are merely given as an example of amounts that can suitably be used and not as mandatory measures which must be respected. In particular, D2 was not shown to contain any information which would indicate that using higher amounts would be detrimental for any reason. Also, no arguments were put forward by the respondent that the skilled person would have had any reasons to disregard such (higher) amounts of terpolymer. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that the skilled person seeking a mere alternative to the sizing composition of example 4 of D2 would consider it obvious to use the terpolymer taught therein even in amounts higher than the ones disclosed in paragraphs 8 and 19 of D2, in particular in an amount which is only slightly higher (e.g. 2 wt% vs. 1.5 wt%). In doing so, the skilled person would be at most merely accepting possible disadvantages (which were neither even demonstrated, nor alleged in the present case) related to the use of higher amounts of such a terpolymer. In that respect, it is further noted that, in view of the evidence on file and of the parties' submissions, it is not credible that increasing the amount of the terpolymer according to D2 from 1.5 wt% as taught in D2 to an amount of 2 wt% as defined in claim 1 of the main request may be expected to lead to so dramatic changes in the properties of the sizing composition that the skilled person would be deterred from using such an amount of polymer.

2.4.2 The above conclusion is also valid considering that the terpolymer according to D2 is known to be a stabiliser for the emulsion of the sizing composition (see e.g. D2: paragraphs 3 and 7) and that, as put forward by the appellant, such polymeric stabilisers are known to be suitably used in amounts of 2 wt% or even higher (statement of grounds of appeal: page 7, fifth paragraph with reference to D3; letter of 26 October 2022: page 3, fourth to sixth paragraphs). In that respect, it is noted that the respondent acknowledged during the oral proceedings before the Board that the objection of the appellant relying on the combination of D2 with D3 was already mentioned in the statement of grounds of appeal (see page 7, fifth paragraph thereof). Therefore, it was accepted that said objection was not late-filed and the request that said objection be not admitted (letter of 14 November 2022: section 1.2, second paragraph) was not pursed any longer. In that regard, although it is correct that the teaching of D3 is not directed to aldehyde-functionalized polymers according to D2 (and as defined in operative claim 1), the Board is satisfied that D3 supports the appellant's view that the skilled person knows that such polymeric stabilisers can generally be used in amounts of 2 wt% or higher and would in any case, based on this knowledge, not be deterred from using the terpolymer according to D2 in an amount of 2 wt% or higher. Therefore, the teaching of D3 relied upon by the appellant further confirms the conclusion reached in section 2.4.1 in view of the teaching of D2 alone.

2.4.3 At the oral proceedings before the Board, the respondent argued that the modification of the amount of terpolymer used in example 4 of D2 could not be obvious because D2 did not provide any information in that regard for said example 4. Therefore, the skilled person would have had no motivation to concentrate on that feature and/or to contemplate modifying it.

However, although it is correct that D2 contains no explicit information regarding the amount of terpolymer used therein, the skilled person confronted with example 4 of D2 and aiming at providing an alternative thereto would have, in order to prepare a similar composition, to choose to work with a particular amount of terpolymer. To do so, the skilled person would have to rely on the disclosure in that regard indicated in D2, which is given at paragraphs 8 and 19 thereof. For that reason, the respondent's argument is not persuasive.

2.4.4 The respondent further argued that the reading of D2 made by the Board in above sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 did not take into account the disclosed context of D2 and what the skilled person would understand from said disclosure (letter of 21 October 2022: section 1.3, starting from the second paragraph on page 3 and ending on page 4). In particular, using an amount of at least 2 wt% constituted a deviation from the highest value taught in D2 by at least 33 %, which could not be considered as an obvious modification of the disclosure of D2, in particular in the absence of any motivation to do so.

However, as already indicated in section 2.4.1 above, the Board considers that, in view of the disclosure of D2 as a whole, the highest value of 1.5 wt% for the amount of terpolymer explicitly indicated in paragraphs 8 and 19 of D2 can only be understood as a mere example of a suitable amount to be used and not as an obligatory measure to take in order to carry out the invention according to D2. In particular, in the absence of any counter-indication, either in D2 itself or in any other prior art document(s), regarding the use of an amount of e.g. 2 wt%, such an amount of terpolymer is held to constitute an obvious measure to take in order to provide a mere alternative to the closest prior art. In particular, it was not shown that such an amount, even if it corresponds to an increase of more than 33 % as compared to the teaching of D2, would be such that the skilled person seeking for a mere alternative would not contemplate it.

In addition, the Board's conclusion is reached considering that, since the problem to be solved resides in the provision of a mere alternative to the closest prior art, as the patent does not show any technical effect compared to example 4 of D2, there is no need for a motivation or a hint in the prior art to undertake the modification needed in order to arrive at the subject-matter being claimed. It is rather sufficient that such a modification remains within the ambit of the teaching of the prior art document (here D2) or is usual in the art (as derivable from D3, which can optionally be considered as a combination document). In doing so, the Board is satisfied that the above conclusion is not reached based on hindsight, as held by the respondent, but by considering which modifications of the prior art disclosure would be considered to be obvious by the skilled person aiming at solving the problem posed.

For these reasons, the respondent's arguments did not convince.

2.4.5 In view of the above and considering the teaching of D2 either alone or, optionally, in combination with D3, it was obvious to provide a mere alternative to the sizing composition according to example 4 of D2 by using therein a terpolymer with a weight average molecular weight of at least 50,000 g/mole and in an amount from 2 wt% to 33 wt% as defined in operative claim 1.

2.5 It is the Board's understanding that, in the decision under appeal, the opposition division acknowledged an inventive step considering inter alia that the compositions being claimed did not require the use of starch as was done in D2 (decision under appeal: page 19, second and fourth paragraphs).

However, considering that the absence of starch is not reflected in the wording of operative claim 1, said argument is not persuasive. The same is valid regarding the mentioned improvement in sizing relied upon (reasons of the decision: page 19, end of fourth paragraph) since the problem to be solved resides, as indicated above, in the provision of a mere alternative.

These conclusions, which were communicated to the parties well in advance of the oral proceedings before the Board (section 7.4.3 of the Board's communication), remained uncontested.

2.6 For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request does not involve an inventive step and the main request is not allowable.

First auxiliary request

3. Admittance

3.1 The appellant requested that the first auxiliary request be not admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 because it was not substantiated in the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal.

3.2 The appellant's objection is based on the established case law that an auxiliary request filed at the beginning of the appeal proceedings (with the statement of grounds of appeal or with the rejoinder thereto) which was not substantiated in a party's submission according to Article 12(2) RPBA 2007 is not to be taken into account for that reason by virtue of Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 (Case Law, supra, V.A.5.12.6, citing T 1890/09 and T 217/10; see also T 420/14). In particular, requests that are not self-explanatory are held as not validly filed and to become effective only at the date on which they are substantiated (Case Law, supra, V.A.5.12.6, paragraphs dealing with T 1784/14, T 568/14 and T 319/18).

3.2.1 In that respect, it was not disputed by the respondent (in particular at the oral proceedings before the Board) that the first auxiliary request was submitted for the first time with their rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal.

3.2.2 In the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal, the respondent merely indicated that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differed from claim 1 of the main request in that it was further specified that the composition being claimed further comprised a solids content ranging from about 0.1 to about 10 wt% in an aqueous phase and that said auxiliary request constituted a fall-back position (rejoinder: page 13, last paragraph).

In that respect, the Board agrees with the findings of decision T 687/15 (see in particular point 2.1 of the reasons), which was relied upon by the appellant (letter of 29 September 2022: top of page 3), that the mere statement that an auxiliary request constitutes a fall-back position does not allow the Board and the appellant to understand the rationale behind the request and, for that reason, does not fulfil the substantiation requirements of Article 12(2) RPBA 2007 (whose wording is in essence identical to the one of Article 12(3) RPBA 2020, in as far as both articles require that "The statement of grounds of appeal and the reply shall contain a party's complete case. They shall set out clearly and concisely the reasons why it is requested that the decision under appeal be reversed, amended or upheld, and should specify expressly all the facts, arguments and evidence relied on").

3.2.3 In view of the above, the respondent has in particular not provided any arguments how the amendments made could contribute to novelty over D1 and/or inventive step when taking example 4 of D2 as the closest prior art, which were objections raised or maintained by the appellant in their statement of grounds of appeal. In particular, it is noted that the amendments made consist of the features specified in claim 8 of the patent in suit, whereby it was already argued by the appellant in their notice of opposition that this feature did not contribute to an inventive step over D2 as the closest prior art (notice of opposition: bottom of page 12). Therefore, not only the respondent could have been expected to provide some substantiation in support of the amendments made in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request, but he would even have had good reasons to do so in respect of inventive step starting from D2.

3.2.4 The respondent put forward that such a substantiation was in the present case not necessary because the first auxiliary request was self-explanatory (letter of 21 October 2022: page 4, penultimate paragraph to bottom of page 5).

However, the features that were added to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request were not additional limitations of features which were present in claim 1 of the main request. Therefore, it cannot be held that the line of defense put forward by the respondent for the first auxiliary request was self-explanatory in view of the argumentation put forward for the main request. In particular, regarding inventive step over D2, it was not readily understandable whether the respondent considered that the added features were e.g. derivable from the teaching of D2 alone or not, and/or whether said added features were intended to be related to the presence of an unexpected effect (which would necessitate a reformulation of the problem to be solved) and/or why said features were not obvious in view of D2, optionally in combination with the other cited prior art documents. Under these circumstances, the Board considers that the substantiation of the first auxiliary request cannot be regarded as self-explanatory, contrary to the respondent's view.

3.2.5 Since the first auxiliary request was neither substantiated in the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal, nor can it be held to be self-explanatory, the Board decided not to take it into account pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007.

3.3 Considering that at least some substantiation why the first auxiliary request was novel over D1 and involved an inventive step in view of D2 as the closest prior art document was provided by the respondent with their letter of 21 October 2022 (section 2), the question arose if the first auxiliary request should be held to have been validly filed with said written submission and be admitted into the proceedings for that reason.

3.4 However, assuming - to the respondent's benefit - that the first auxiliary request was substantiated with the respondent's letter of 21 October 2022, it became effective only at that date, which is after the summons to oral proceedings was notified to the parties. Consequently, the filing of the duly substantiated first auxiliary request on 21 October 2022 constituted an amendment to the respondent's case, the admittance of which is subject to the stipulations of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. In that regard, these stipulations provide that an amendment to a party's case made after notification of a summons to oral proceedings shall, in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned.

However, no cogent reasons were indicated by the respondent to justify the late substantiation in support of the first auxiliary request. Also the Board cannot identify any. In particular, the respondent should have taken into account from the outset of the appeal proceedings that the Board could overturn the opposition division's decision in respect of inventive step starting from D2 as the closest prior art document. The fact that the Board did so cannot be deemed surprising and cannot justify the filing of the substantiation of an auxiliary request addressing an issue raised by the appellant at the outset of the appeal at such a late stage of the proceedings. In the case in hand, there is no doubt that the respondent had reasons to file such a request together with a proper substantiation earlier, namely in direct reply to the statement of grounds of appeal. In view of the above, there are no exceptional circumstances in the case in hand that may justify that the substantiation of the first auxiliary request be filed at such a late stage of the proceedings. For these reasons, the first auxiliary request was not admitted into the proceedings (Article 13(2) RPBA 2020).

4. Since the main request is not allowable and the first auxiliary request is not admitted into the proceedings, the patent is to be revoked.

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