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
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t201058eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 1058/20 (Alcohol production / Jupeng) 04-11-2022
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 1058/20 (Alcohol production / Jupeng) 04-11-2022

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T105820.20221104
Date of decision
04 November 2022
Case number
T 1058/20
Petition for review of
-
Application number
09767101.0
IPC class
C10J 3/66
C12P 7/08
C10J 3/02
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 405.74 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

METHODS FOR SEQUESTERING CARBON DIOXIDE INTO ALCOHOLS VIA GASIFICATION AND FERMENTATION

Applicant name
Jupeng Bio (HK) Limited
Opponent name
-
Board
3.3.06
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art
Keywords

Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)

amendment of the party's appeal case - new request limited to one alternative (yes)

Late-filed request - should have been submitted in first-instance proceedings (yes)

Exceptional circumstances (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 2920/18
T 0494/18
T 2091/18
T 1597/16
T 1439/16
T 1224/15
T 0908/18
T 0682/16
T 0168/16
T 1480/16
T 2243/18
T 1792/19
T 1151/18
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division to refuse the application because all requests then on file (the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 3) did not meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

II. With the grounds of appeal, the appellant filed four sets of claims as auxiliary requests 1 to 4. The main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 2 corresponded to auxiliary requests 1 and 2 filed in the examining proceedings. The appellant argued that the main request, as considered by the examining division, and the four auxiliary requests met the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. If the impugned decision were to be set aside, it requested that the application be remitted to the examining division for further prosecution on novelty and inventive step based on the claims of the main request. Moreover, the appellant requested a refund of the appeal fee on the basis of an alleged procedural violation.

III. In its preliminary opinion, the board held that none of the requests filed with the grounds of appeal appeared to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

IV. With a submission of 23 December 2021, the appellant filed a new first auxiliary request and argued that the request should be admitted into the proceedings because it had been filed promptly in response to the preliminary opinion of the board, was not detrimental to procedural economy and was clearly allowable. Moreover, the request was filed at the first opportunity to submit a request which clearly had been indicated to overcome the objections. The appellant further opined that due to an alleged inconsistency in the examining division's position, it was entitled to rely on the statement that oxygen in both chambers was an essential feature. With the board's preliminary opinion, it had been informed for the first time that the inconsistency with Article 84 EPC would not be considered. This unexpected development should be qualified as exceptional circumstances.

V. With a submission of 28 October 2022, the appellant filed decision T 2920/18 in support of its request to admit the new first auxiliary request into the proceedings. Moreover, it announced it would not attend the oral proceedings and withdrew the corresponding request.

VI. Oral proceedings were held on 4 November 2020 in the absence of the appellant by video conference.

The board established the appellant's final requests in writing as follows.

The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the case be remitted to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of the claims of the main request filed with the grounds of appeal

or, as an auxiliary measure,

that the claims of the new first auxiliary request, filed on 23 December 2021, be considered in the appeal,

or

that the application be proceeded on the basis of one of the auxiliary requests, labelled auxiliary requests 1 to 4, filed with the grounds of appeal.

The appellant further requested that the appeal fee be reimbursed.

1. Main request - Article 123(2) EPC

Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows [additions vis-à-vis claim 20 as originally filed (PCT/US 2009/003685) are underlined]:

"1. A method of producing alcohol comprising: injecting carbon dioxide and oxygen gas and carbonaceous material into a gasifier,

wherein said gasifier comprises a lower chamber and an upper chamber,

wherein a gaseous product from the lower chamber moves to the upper chamber,

wherein oxygen is injected in the lower chamber and the upper chamber,

and carbon dioxide is injected in the lower chamber, the upper chamber, or both chambers;

creating syngas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen; contacting the syngas with biocatalyst in a fermentation container to produce an alcohol product mixture;

and selectively recovering alcohol from the product mixture."

1.1 For the assessment of Article 123(2) EPC, the question to be answered is what a skilled person can derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the documents as filed (the gold standard, see G 2/10, Reasons 4.3).

1.2 The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request does not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC for the following reasons.

1.2.1 As correctly pointed out by the appellant, claim 1 in essence encompasses three alternative embodiments:

(i) one embodiment where oxygen and CO2 are injected into the lower chamber and oxygen is injected into the upper chamber

(ii) one embodiment where oxygen and CO2 are injected into the upper chamber and oxygen is injected into the lower chamber

(iii) one embodiment where CO2 and oxygen are injected into both chambers

1.2.2 While the injection of both CO2 and oxygen into the first and second chamber of a reactor is disclosed in the general part of the description on page 4, line 32 to page 5, line 3 and page 15, lines 18-22 of the description and also, albeit for a method of optimising syngas production, in claim 5 as originally filed, no such general disclosure can be found for embodiments (i) and (ii).

1.2.3 The appellant has argued that support for these two embodiments could be found "throughout the application as filed" and in particular in the example section of the application. At least examples 1 to 20 disclosed multiple examples according to all three options. In view of the more general disclosure that supported the injection of oxygen into both chambers as an essential feature, there was no reason why the skilled person would consider that this aspect be linked to the specific conditions in one or more examples.

1.2.4 The appellant's arguments are not convincing. With regard to the general part of the application, there is no support for embodiments (i) and (ii). For instance, Figures 1-3 (see page 12, lines 25-33) disclose embodiment (iii) but not embodiments (i) or (ii), as correctly set out in the impugned decision on page 7. With regard to the methods disclosed in the example section (pages 18-21), they are much more specific than the two embodiments claimed. Under established case law, a feature disclosed only in a specific embodiment can be isolated and thus generalised from the embodiment only if there is no functional or structural relationship between this feature and other features of the embodiment (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edn., II.E.1.9).

1.2.5 In the current case, this condition is not met for the following reasons. Examples 1-7 disclose methods in which oxygen and CO2 are injected into the lower chamber and oxygen is injected into the upper chamber. Likewise, examples 8-14 disclose methods in which oxygen and CO2 are injected into the upper chamber and oxygen is injected into the lower chamber. On page 18, lines 12-13, 21 and 28-29, such methods are also disclosed in more general terms. Thus, these passages disclose methods where oxygen and CO2 are injected into the gasifier as required by embodiments (i) and (ii).

1.2.6 However, in all these methods, other aspects are disclosed to be functionally related to the injection of the oxygen into the respective chambers, for instance, the oxygen input and the temperature in the first chamber being controlled so that only a partial oxidation of carbonaceous material occurs and not complete combustion (page 18, lines 13-15). On the same page (lines 16-19), the temperature range used to achieve this is also disclosed. For the skilled person, there can be no doubt that the conditions of the injection of oxygen (location, pure or mixed) into the chambers and the effect achieved, namely the partial oxidation, are technically interrelated.

1.2.7 Moreover, the temperature range of between 1750 to 2250 ºF in the upper chamber is achieved by and therefore functionally related to the injection of pure oxygen (page 18, lines 21-22). This is immediately apparent from the wording used: "Pure oxygen is introduced into the second stage to raise the temperature to about 1750 to about 2250 degrees F...".

The appellant has argued that it followed from the description of Figures 1-3 on page 12, lines 25-32 that as an alternative to pure oxygen, air could be used. However, none of these figures or this passage relates to embodiment (i) or (ii). The appellant has also argued that it would be apparent to the skilled person that any type of additional oxygen could be injected into the upper chamber to achieve a temperature in this range. This was confirmed on page 18, lines 30-32, where it was disclosed for a one-stage gasifier that a temperature of 2250 °F could be reached by injection air, oxygen-enriched air of pure oxygen alike.

However, these arguments are not convincing since the question at stake is what the application does or does not disclose directly and unambiguously in the context of the relevant embodiments. The description on page 18 clearly distinguishes between the first stage where air, oxygen-enriched air or pure oxygen can be injected alternatively, and the second stage, where only pure oxygen is mentioned. Moreover, this distinction is not arbitrary since it is technically plausible that undiluted pure oxygen is used to achieve higher temperatures. This is also taught in the application on page 13, lines 1-3, where it is disclosed that CO2 is added, inter alia, to provide a heat sink to reduce the temperature.

The board does not dispute that it may be possible that such temperatures could also be achieved by using alternative means, such as by the injection of oxygen enriched air, but this does not detract from the fact that in the context of the relevant passage, only pure oxygen is directly and unambiguously disclosed.

1.2.8 For these reasons, the board concludes that embodiments (i) and (ii) are not disclosed in the application as filed in the generalised form claimed. It follows that the main request is not allowable (Article 123(2) EPC).

1.3 New first auxiliary request

1.3.1 Claim 1 of the new first auxiliary request, with marked amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of the main request, reads as follows:

"1. A method of producing alcohol comprising:

injecting carbon dioxide and oxygen gas and carbonaceous material into a gasifier, wherein said gasifier comprises a lower chamber and an upper chamber, wherein a gaseous product from the lower chamber moves to the upper chamber, and wherein oxygen [deleted: is injected in the lower chamber and the upper chamber,] and carbon dioxide [deleted: is] are injected in [deleted: the lower chamber, the upper chamber, or] both chambers;

creating syngas comprising carbon monoxide and hydrogen;

contacting the syngas with biocatalyst in a fermentation container to produce an alcohol product mixture;

and selectively recovering alcohol from the product mixture."

In other words, the claim has been limited to embodiment (iii) mentioned above under point 1.2.1 and 1.2.2

1.3.2 The board has exercised its discretion not to take the new first auxiliary request into account under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 is applicable because the new first auxiliary request was filed on 23 December 2021 and thus after notification of the summons to oral proceedings (Article 25(1),(3) RPBA 2020). In accordance with Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, any amendment to a party's appeal case shall in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned.

The new first auxiliary request is an amendment to the appellant's appeal case not justified by exceptional circumstances.

1.3.3 In the case on file, the deletion of alternatives (i) and (ii) in the new first auxiliary request is an amendment of the appellant's appeal case within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and it is also an amendment in view of the requests on which the impugned decision was based (Article 12(2) and (4) RPBA 2020).

(a) As set out in detail and with reference to the case law of the boards in the decision cited by the appellant (T 2920/18, point 3.6) and in decision T 494/18 (point 1.3), the deletion of a claim or an alternative within a claim is to be regarded as an "amendment to the party's appeal case" (see also: T 2091/18, Reasons 4; T 1597/16, Reasons 4; T 1439/16, Reasons 2; T 1224/15, Reasons 5; T 908/18, Reasons 1; T 682/16, Reasons 5 to 8; concerning Article 13(1) RPBA 2007: T 168/16, Reasons 2.1 and 2.2). The question of what can be defined as an "amendment to a party's appeal case" can be answered in the systematic context of the provisions on appeal proceedings. Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 provides that the statement of grounds of appeal and the reply must contain a party's complete appeal case. Accordingly, all requests must be specified expressly at this stage. It follows from this that only requests filed with the party's statement of grounds of appeal or the reply form part of a party's appeal case. Consequently, a new request filed afterwards with a set of claims different to that of the previous requests is usually to be regarded as an "amendment to a party's appeal case" within the meaning of Article 13 RPBA 2020. In line with Articles 12(3) and 13 RPBA 2020, a request in which alternatives in a claim have been deleted compared to the previous requests is a new request and thus usually amounts to an "amendment to the party's appeal case" under Article 13 RPBA 2020.

This same conclusion is arrived at under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020 because the submission of the new first auxiliary request is also an amendment under Article 12(4) and (2) RPBA 2020 as the impugned decision was not based on that request and the reasons in the impugned decision were not directed to a complete assessment of the subject-matter claimed with the new first auxiliary request.

Moreover, with this approach, whether the new request is to be qualified as an amendment (a factual condition) is to be assessed in a first step without anticipating the criterion of procedural economy, which is only applied in a second step as a criterion of discretion when determining the legal consequence. Thus, the factual situation (describing the factual conditions that must be met for the legal consequence to occur) and the criteria for applying the board's discretion are clearly distinguished from each other and treated separately (see also T 494/18, Reasons 1.3.3) while being dogmatically consistent.

Following this approach, the deletion of alternatives (i) and (ii) in the new first auxiliary request is an amendment to the appellant's appeal case making Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 applicable.

(b) Other boards have held that the deletion of a claim or an alternative in a claim was only qualified to be an amendment of the party's appeal case if it changed the legal or factual framework of the appeal (see, for example: T 1480/16, Reasons 2.3; T 2243/18, Reasons 2; T 1792/19, Reasons 2; T 1151/18, Reasons 2.1).

However, even under this approach, the new first auxiliary request would be qualified as an amendment of the appellant's appeal case because the deletion of alternatives (i) and (ii) would lead the assessment in a different direction (see below 1.3.4 (a)) compared to the previous assessment. Thus, even based on this approach, Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 would be applicable.

(c) Therefore, the board needed to assess whether to admit the new first auxiliary request in exercising its discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.

1.3.4 In the current case, exceptional circumstances which could justify the admittance of the new first auxiliary request are not present because the filing of a request limited to alternative (iii) would have been reasonable during the examining proceedings and the circumstances have not changed in view of the impugned decision or during the appeal proceedings.

The principles underlying Article 12(2), (4) and (6) RPBA 2020 can also be applied when assessing whether exceptional circumstances are present according to Article 13(2) RPBA because an amendment that would not have been admitted at the beginning of the appeal proceedings (as it could and should have been submitted during the first-instance proceedings) can normally not be justified at a later stage of the appeal proceedings either.

In the current case, the filing of a request limited to alternative (iii) could and should have been filed during the examining proceedings. It was triggered for the first time neither by the impugned decision nor by subsequent developments in the appeal proceedings.

(a) In its decision, the examining division held that the general part of the application as filed (Figures 1-3 and claim 5) only disclosed embodiments where both oxygen and carbon dioxide were added to each chamber together. With regard to Figures 5 to 8, the examining division reasoned that the injection of oxygen was not mentioned. From this it is clear that according to the examining division, embodiments (i) and (ii) were not originally disclosed in these parts of the application as originally filed.

With regard to the example section (examples 1 to 20), the division acknowledged that it disclosed methods where oxygen was injected into both chambers while CO2 was injected into the lower chamber, but it pointed out that these methods were more specific than the claimed method (point 17 of the decision). Thus, it is clear that according to the examining division, no basis for embodiments (i) or (ii) without the further limiting features could be found in the examples (intermediate generalisation).

This finding was by no means surprising for the applicant since it had already been set out by the examining division before, for example, in the annex to the summons (11 October 2018, point 3.1) and was confirmed in a telephone conversation on 16 September 2019.

As claim 1 of the new first auxiliary request does not rely on the example section (see point 1.2.2 above), it is clear that the request would have been a suitable reaction to overcome the objections raised in the summons and reiterated in the telephone conversation. Therefore, the request could and should have been filed at least ahead of the oral proceedings before the examining division to overcome the objections raised.

However, instead of filing a request restricted to embodiment (iii) during the examination proceedings, the appellant decided to proceed with requests including all three embodiments with further specifications (see the main request of 11 July 2019 and auxiliary request 2 of 11 September 2019) and with claim requests restricted to embodiment (i) (auxiliary request 1 of 11 July 2019 and auxiliary request 3 of 11 September 2019), thus leading the assessment in a different direction.

(b) The appellant argued that the new first auxiliary request had been filed at the first opportunity to submit a request which clearly had been indicated to overcome the objections on appeal. However, this argument is not convincing since the board's preliminary opinion merely confirmed the reasons given in the contested decision and did not raise any new issues.

In this context, the appellant also referred to an objection under Article 84 EPC which the examining division raised in the communication of 10 April 2018 (point 1 and 2.2), according to which the injection of oxygen into both chambers was an essential feature of the invention. The board understands the appellant's argument in such a way that the new first auxiliary request could not have been filed earlier since the applicant could not reconcile the allegedly contradictory objections under Article 84 EPC and 123(2) EPC. This had only become possible after the board had not raised any objections under Article 84 EPC.

This argument is, however, not convincing because, independently of its merits, the examining division's objection under Article 84 EPC as set out in the communication dated 18 April 2018 against a different set of claims does not apply to alternative (iii) (and thus to the new first auxiliary request) because this alternative stipulates that oxygen is injected into both chambers. Thus, irrespective of whether the objection under Article 84 EPC was in fact maintained by the examining division, as alleged by the appellant, this was no valid reason for not filing the new first auxiliary request in the first-instance proceedings.

(c) The appellant also referred to decision T 2920/18 in which the board found, inter alia, that the "change of case" caused by the deletion of claims in the proprietor's claim request served the purpose of procedural economy. However, that conclusion concerned a different procedural situation and is therefore not relevant for the current case. In the case underlying decision T 2920/18, the board found that the proprietor's amendment neither altered the factual or legal framework of the proceedings and that nor was there a need for reassessing the subject of the proceedings.

This situation differs from the current case where the assessment of the new first auxiliary request would change the framework of the proceedings although the preliminary opinion of the board basically only confirmed the appealed decision and the preliminary opinion of the examining division on the requests underlying the impugned decision. As set out above, in view of the preliminary opinion given by the examining division in its annex to the summons, the appellant could and should have filed the new auxiliary request during the examining proceedings, but it did not do so. Instead, it filed several requests, none of them limited to embodiment (iii). Thus, the appellant failed to submit claim requests leading in a clear and convergent direction in the first-instance proceedings. As consequence, the admittance of the new claim request would change the framework of the proceedings.

Refraining from the submission of the new request in the first-instance proceedings contravened procedural economy because the appeal could have been superfluous if the examining division had had the opportunity to assess the allowability of the new claim request. In this respect, it should be noted that the principles of procedural economy are not to be assessed isolated from the course of the appeal proceedings but rather in view of the proceedings as a whole.

(d) Finally, the appellant argued that the request should be admitted because it was clearly allowable. However, first of all, prima facie allowability as such would not justify exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020. Moreover, this assertion is not entirely accurate since at most the request would be allowable under Article 123(2) EPC so that, if admitted, the board would remit the case to the examining division for further prosecution because the issues of novelty and inventive step for alternative (iii) have not been discussed.

Moreover, the primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner (Article 12(2) RPBA 2020; G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408, Reasons 18). If a decision is perceived to be erroneous, the appeal proceedings provide a way to have the decision rectified. However, in the current case, the filing of the new first auxiliary request does not aim to rectify an error in the decision but rather the appellant's failure to file a request in time. Admitting this request would not only be at odds with the purpose of the appeal proceedings but would also devalue the first-instance proceedings.

1.3.5 For these reasons, exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 are not present. Therefore, the board exercised its discretion not to take into account the new first auxiliary request.

1.4 Auxiliary request 1, filed with the grounds of appeal

Compared to claim 1 of the main request, claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 has been limited to embodiment (i). For the same reasons as set out for the main request, the claim does not meet the requirement of Article 123 (2) EPC.

1.5 Auxiliary requests 2 to 4, filed with the grounds of appeal

1.5.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 corresponds to the main request with the additional limitation: "wherein a temperature of 1400 degrees F (760 degrees C) or less is maintained in the lower chamber and a temperature of the upper chamber is raised to between 1750 to 2250 degrees F (954 to 1232 degrees C)".

1.5.2 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 corresponds to the auxiliary request 2 with the additional limitations: "and wherein the lower chamber temperature and oxygen input is controlled such that only partial oxidation of carbonaceous material occurs, not complete combustion," and "in order to accomplish cracking and partial oxidation of any tar (such as heavy hydrocarbons) contained in the gaseous stream from the lower chamber;".

1.5.3 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 corresponds to claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 with the temperature range of the lower chamber restricted by the insertion of a lower limit of 750 °F (399 °C).

1.5.4 Neither of these amendments rectifies all deficiencies of the main request. The claims are not limited to methods where pure oxygen is used in the upper chamber (see point1.2.7 above). Therefore, auxiliary requests 2 to 4 do not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

1.5.5 In view of this finding, it was not necessary to discuss the admittance of auxiliary requests 3 and 4 filed for the first time with the grounds of appeal (Article 12(4) and (6) RPBA 2020).

2. Request for remittal

The appellant requested remittal of the case for further prosecution if the impugned decision, which had not discussed novelty or inventive step, were to be set aside. However, as all the requests on file that have been taken into account contravened Article 123(2) EPC, the impugned decision is not set aside, and there is no basis for further prosecution or remittal.

2.1 Reimbursement of the appeal fee

As the board set out in its preliminary opinion, it does not share the appellant's opinion on the alleged procedural violation. However, as the appeal is not allowable, the further requirement for reimbursement of the appeal fee is not fulfilled (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC). Thus, for this latter reason alone, the appeal fee cannot be reimbursed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is refused.

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