Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Technologies
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • Core activities
          • Stories and insights
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation against cancer
        • Assistive robotics
        • Space technologies
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
        • Research universities and public research organisations
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 1193/21 (PRINTED WATER-SOLUBLE PACKAGE/UNILEVER) 09-03-2023
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 1193/21 (PRINTED WATER-SOLUBLE PACKAGE/UNILEVER) 09-03-2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T119321.20230309
Date of decision
09 March 2023
Case number
T 1193/21
Petition for review of
-
Application number
16736438.9
IPC class
C11D 17/04
B65D 65/46
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 396.74 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

WATER-SOLUBLE PACKAGE

Applicant name

Unilever IP Holdings B.V.

Unilever Global IP Limited

Opponent name
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Board
3.3.06
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(6)
European Patent Convention Art 113(1)
Keywords

Admissibility of appeal - indication of the reasons for setting aside the decision (yes)

Late-filed evidence - abuse of procedure (no)

Right to be heard - violation (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0960/15
T 1652/08
T 0572/17
T 2197/11
T 0617/16
T 2337/16
T 0939/90
T 1019/92
T 2415/09
T 0103/15
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal of the proprietors lies against the decision of the opposition division to maintain European patent EP 3 334 817 in amended form, based on auxiliary request 1.

II. In said decision, claim 1 as granted (main request) was found to lack inventive step over D2 (WO 2014/016144) when taking into account D10 (WO 2013/158364), D7 (European Commission, "COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1297/2014") and experimental report D14 - all filed with the grounds of opposition - as well as the second declaration of Miguel Brandt (D18) filed four days before the oral proceedings before the opposition division and providing supplemental information with regard to the ink used in D14. The opposition division admitted D18 as well as the first declaration of Miguel Brandt D11 as prima facie relevant, but not the other late-filed documents, in particular D16 (WO 2015/148461) and D17 (coloration analysis).

III. With their grounds of appeal the appellants contested the above decision on the grounds that the division had not applied the right principles when exercising its discretion to admit D11 and D18 and to consider D14, and further that it should also have admitted D16 and D17.

IV. With its reply the opponent contested the admissibility and allowability of the appeal.

V. At the oral proceedings held on 9 March 2023 the appellants requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent maintained as granted.

The respondent requested that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible or the appeal be dismissed.

1. Admissibility of the appeal

1.1 Rule 99(2) EPC stipulates that the statement of grounds of appeal shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the impugned decision.

1.2 The opposition division's finding regarding lack of inventive step of the claims of the main request was based inter alia on D14 supplemented with information provided by document D18 about the ink used in D14.

1.3 In their statement of grounds of appeal, the appellants explained why D18 should not have been admitted and concluded that in case D18 was disregarded by the board the decision regarding the main request was without basis.

1.4 For the board, this reasoning is sufficient under Article 108, 3rd sentence, and Rule 99(2) EPC because in opposition proceedings the burden of proof for identifying a lack of inventive step lies with the opponent. In other words a granted claim is presumed to be inventive unless it is shown that it is not. Since in the current case the appellant identified a break in the chain of arguments that lead to the main request being held non inventive, this reasoning is sufficient for explaining why the contested decision has to be set aside.

1.5 The board therefore concluded that the appeal was admissible.

2. Admittance of D18

2.1 The appellants requested not to admit this document although it had been admitted into the proceedings by the opposition division and the decision was based on it.

2.2 The board notes that while under Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 it is possible to admit documents that were not admitted in the first instance proceedings, there is no basis for not admitting such documents in said Article or elsewhere in the RPBA.

In the jurisprudence there is also no consensus as to whether this is possible at all under the EPC. While some boards have decided that, at least in cases of an abuse of discretion, the discretionary decision to admit a document can be overturned even if the decision is based on that document (e.g. T 960/15; T 1652/08;

T 572/14 or T 2197/11), other boards have decided differently (e.g. T 617/16, point 1.1.1 of the reasons, and T 2337/16, point 4.2 of the reasons).

2.3 In the current case, this question can remain open because in the board's view, the opposition division exercised its discretion according to the right principles and in a reasonable way.

2.3.1 The division admitted D18 after having assessed its prima facie relevance (page 5, 2nd paragraph of the decision) which, according to established jurisprudence, is the correct criterion to apply. The appellants did not deny that this is a relevant criterion when deciding upon its admittance, neither did they contest that D18 is relevant for the evaluation of D14 (see point 5 of their submission of 24 February 2023). However they make a distinction between "factual relevance" of a document and its "actual relevance" as follows:

2.3.2 They argued that while D18 was indeed factually relevant, there was no actual relevance because the document had been filed so late that the division could not reach a conclusion based on the document while still ensuring fair and expedient proceedings. In this context the appellants argued that for late filed experimental evidence, the guiding principle should be that it could only be admitted if the other party could assess it by investigation and replication, but in the appellants' view, this principle had been ignored by the division, and had it been applied, D18 would not have been admitted because experimental report D14 became replicable only once the ink used had been identified in D18. But since this information was made available only four days before the oral proceedings, this was too late for carrying out counter experiments.

In this context, the appellants referred to the Case law of the Boards of Appeal (10th edition, V.A.5.13.5b and IV.C.4.1) and in particular to T 0939/90, reasons 2.

2.4 For the board these arguments are not convincing because first of all, decision T 0939/90 concerns a case in which completely new experimental data were filed shortly before the oral proceedings. The board there confirmed the decision of the opposition division not to admit the material since "its lateness practically precluded the Opponents from countering it by tests of their own".

The situation in the current case is fundamentally different since experimental report D14 was filed with the grounds of opposition, and this, if the proprietors had indeed wanted to replicate the experiments, they could have requested the opponent to disclose which ink had been used already with the reply to the opposition. However, no such request had been made. Moreover, in view of paragraph 0047 of the patent, which states that the type of ink is not particularly limited, and further taking into account that the examples of the patent do not disclose which ink had been used either, there was no reason for the opponent to specify the type of ink used in D14.

2.5 During the oral proceedings before the board, the appellants stated that they had decided to deal only with the fundamental deficiencies of D14 instead of presenting all corresponding objections when filing the reply to the notice of opposition. In particular, they explained that they saw no need for any counter experiments at that stage because D14 was seen as very weak evidence for the reasons given in the reply to the opposition.

2.6 However, the board observes that the principles of procedural economy and fairness of the proceedings require a party to present all aspects of its case as soon as possible, in particular in inter parte proceedings, since the parties have a duty to facilitate the swift conduct of the proceedings inter alia by submitting all relevant facts, evidence, arguments and requests as early and completely as possible (Case law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, IV.C.4.3.1).

2.7 Thus, if a party decides to present an aspect later in the proceedings, it must bear the consequences of this decision. In the current case, it was only with the submission of 28 January 2021 (i.e. one day before the final date for making submissions under Rule 116 EPC and two months before the oral proceedings) that the proprietors disclosed in very general terms that non-aqueous solvent based inks had been used in the experiments of the patent and that they requested the opponent to disclose the type of ink used in D14. This information having been provided in D18, its filing thus constitutes a direct response to the request of the proprietors.

2.8 The board further notes that the submission of 28 January 2021 does not indicate that the information about the type of ink used in D14 was needed to replicate these experiments, and even if this had been indicated, there was hardly enough time for replicating them, bearing in mind that the experiments in D14 involved a storage time of 6 weeks. Thus, had the proprietors in good faith intended to carry out such replicates, their request to disclose the ink used in D14 should have been filed much earlier since the opposition division raised this issue already in its preliminary opinion. For these reasons, in the board's view, the appellants are at least partly responsible for the late filing of D18.

2.9 The appellants further argued that it would have been incumbent on the opposition division not to admit D18 or at least to postpone the proceedings on its own motion, in order to give the proprietor the possibility to replicate the experiments, thereby ensuring that the proceedings were conducted fairly. The appellants held that it was not their duty to request a postponement because they "could not be expected to accept and accommodate the procedural consequences" of the late filing of D18.

2.10 These arguments are however not convincing because from the way the proprietors had conducted the proceedings, the division had no reason to assume that they intended to carry out such experiments. In this context, the board emphasises that experimental evidence filed by one party is by no means always contested with counter experiments by the other party. Therefore and given the circumstances of the case, it could not be expected from the division to postpone the proceedings. Rather, it would have been incumbent on the proprietors to request a postponement in order to carry out replication experiments. However, no such request was made.

2.11 As a matter of fact, there is also no general rule in the jurisprudence that late-filed evidence should only be admitted if there is sufficient time for replication. As set out above, the sole generally accepted criterion is the prima-facie relevance of the evidence. The case law book further elaborates that: "As to whether and, if so, to what extent opposition divisions can or must consider other criteria too, with the result that even prima facie relevant documents may not be admitted in certain cases, the boards have taken various different approaches" (Case law of the Boards of Appeal, 10**(th) edition, IV.C.4.5.1).

The current board does not deny that there are cases where the principle relied upon by the appellant can and should be used, for instance in the procedural situation underlying decision T 939/90. However, for the reasons set out above, the current case is fundamentally different so that the division was correct in merely applying the prima facie criterion.

2.12 It follows from the above considerations that the opposition division exercised its discretion correctly when admitting D18, so that there is no basis for excluding this document from the proceedings.

3. Alleged abuse of proceedings

3.1 As a general rule, the late-filing of a document needs to be judged within the context of the development of the case. In the current context, however, no abuse is discernible. As pointed out in T 1019/92, cited by the appellants, the subsequent filing of documents does not constitute an abuse of proceedings in the absence of evidence that this was done for tactical reasons (catchword I), but such tactical reasons are not apparent from the current case.

3.2 The appellants argued in particular that the opponent should have reacted much quicker to their request concerning the identification of the ink used, so that the late filing of this information only a couple of days before the oral proceeding amounted to a procedural abuse.

3.3 In the board's view, however, the proprietors could and should have requested this information much earlier (see above).

Furthermore, as explained by the respondent, the delay for providing the information was caused because they needed to get in touch with the manufacturer of the ink and further get its permission to disclose the information in these proceedings.

3.4 The appellants argued that the name of a commercial ink was not a proprietary information so that there had been no need to ask for permission.

3.5 However, as set out above, the proprietors in their submission of 21 January 2021 did not ask for the name of the ink but for its type, namely whether it was non-aqueous solvent based ink. As this type of information an in particular the content of water and organic solvents is not necessarily known to the user, it is plausible that the opponent needed to contact the supplier.

3.6 It follows from the above considerations and from the reasons set out in point 2. above that the filing of D18 does not amount to a substantial procedural abuse.

4. Alleged violation of the right to be heard

4.1 The appellants argued that they had not been able to take position on the ground of obviousness involving documents D14, D11 and D18 together, since the key information about the ink used in D14 had only been made available (with the filing of D18) four days before the oral proceedings. They referred in this respect to T 2415/09 and argued that, without having enough time to perform counter experiments, they could not organise an appropriate defense against the inventive step attack involving these documents.

4.2 The board notes that in the case underlying

T 2415/09 the proprietor was faced with a completely new attack, involving new evidence filed only shortly before the oral proceedings. As set out above, the procedural situation in the current case is different so that, basically for the same reasons given in the discussion regarding admittance of D18, the present board has come to the conclusion that the appellants' right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC has not been violated.

5. Admittance of D11

The appellants argued that during opposition proceedings, they ceased to challenge the admissibility of Dll under the condition that D16 and D17 were also admitted. However, as the opposition division did not admit D16 and D17, they should have been heard as regards admittance of Dll.

For the board, the division's decision to admit D11 being based on the well-recognised criterion of the prima facie relevance of a document, it does not suffer from an error in the use of discretion. And even if the decision on its admittance had been erroneous, since D11 has not been used in the decision, it had no impact onto the outcome of the opposition proceedings. So the board sees no reason to overturn this decision of the opposition division.

6. Admittance of D14

In the board's opinion, the opposition division was correct in considering D14 for the following reasons.

6.1 With reference to T 103/15, the appellants argued that the opposition division should not have taken D14 into account because it was an anonymous technical report.

6.2 This is however not convincing because, while it is true that the author of D14 was not identified initially, this information has subsequently been provided in the declarations Dll and D18. In contrast, decision T 103/15 concerned a case where the opponent explicitly refused to disclose the name of the person responsible for the tests. Therefore this decision is not applicable to the current case.

6.3 The appellants also argued that the fact that the division found Dll and D18 to be prima-facie relevant suggested that it found D14 unconvincing on its own. However, this conclusion is unfounded because although the division was of the opinion that D14 was more relevant with the additional information about the ink used provided by D18, this does not mean that D14 alone would have been "unconvincing" without this information. Finally, even if the division saw indeed a problem with D14 lacking detail, this issue had been rectified by the filing of Dll and D18.

6.4 In this context the appellants complained about the opponent bolstering the probative value of D14 by adding bits of information later on (Dll, D18) but the board notes that the proprietors acted in a similar way, see submissions of 28 January 2021, point 2, and of 2 June 2020, page 13, first paragraph. Therefore the opposition division acted fairly by considering the examples of the patent but also D14.

6.5 Summing up, it appears that the appellants have conceded that, at least when taken together with D18, D14 is a relevant technical report that can be investigated and replicated (point 5 of the submission of 24 February 2023). Therefore, the crucial issue in these proceedings is rather whether D18 should have been admitted. As the board answered this question in the affirmative, see above, it was correct and only logical to also consider D14.

7. Admittance and relevance of D16

The board concluded that, irrespective of its admittance, D16 is not suitable to solve the issues which lead to the decision under appeal.

7.1 The appellants argued that the opposition division erred by evaluating D16 as a prior art rather than a document providing evidence, thus leading to an erroneous decision not to admit D16 into the proceedings.

7.2 The board notes that it may - according to Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 - admit submissions if the decision not to admit them suffered from an error in the use of discretion or unless the circumstances of the appeal justify their admittance. However, even if the discretionary decision of the opposition division not to admit the document was indeed flawed, as alleged by the appellant, D16 is not suitable to solve the issues which led to the decision under appeal for the following reasons.

7.2.1 D14 was filed by the opponent to prove that the quality issues with the printing described in the contested patent were not observed for all ink substrate combinations, so the problem to be solved could not be formulated as to how to overcome these issues.

7.2.2 The proprietors saw a contradiction between the experiments in the patent and those of D14, and filed D16 in order to break the alleged deadlock. The proprietors referred in particular to the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of D16 which confirmed the findings of the patent, so that the contradictory evidence reported in D14 could be disregarded as an unexplained outlier (see appellant's submission of 19 March 2021, par. 22-24). In other words, the proprietors filed D16 as evidence that the quality issues with the printing were always observed.

7.2.3 However, the board notes that the above passage in D16 merely states that the printed pouches may abrade with one another, thereby marring the printing, and that the fixing of the ink on the water-soluble substrate can be challenging. In other words, D16 confirms that problems with the printing occur in some cases but it does not confirm that they always occur. Therefore, it is not possible to disregard D14 in view of D16, and the fact that printing issues may occur in some cases has already been acknowledged by the respondent (see the reply to the appeal, point 7.3). Thus, even if D16 is taken into account - irrespective of the question of its admittance - it is not relevant for the outcome of the appeal.

8. Admittance and relevance of D17

Even if the discretionary decision of the opposition division not to admit this document was indeed flawed, as alleged by the appellant, D17 is not suitable to solve the issues which led to the decision under appeal.

8.1 The appellants argued that the opposition division relied on an incorrect factual assumption when not admitting D17.

8.2 However, similarly to D16, D17 is irrelevant for the outcome of the proceedings for the following reasons:

8.3 D17 is a coloration analysis of the photos of D14 and D15. The crucial finding in D17 appears to be that the blue composition of the samples of D14 shows a color shift from red to blue, while the samples of D15 show a color shift in the opposite direction. However, D15 was not admitted by the division so that any reference to the results of D15 must be disregarded in D17 as well. As a consequence, the only relevance in D17 would be that there is a color shift in the samples of D14, which is already evident from D14 itself. Thus, even if D17 is taken into account - irrespective of the question of its admittance - it is not relevant for the outcome of the appeal.

9. Alleged bias

The appellants were of the opinion that the opposition division's decision to admit Dll and D18 but to disregard D16 and D17 gave the appearance of a discriminatory treatment and thereby amounted to a procedural violation. However, the board sees no evidence for an unfair treatment of the appellants.

9.1 Firstly, it needs to be noted that among the opponent's numerous late filed documents, the division only admitted Dll and D18, which were both linked to the timely filed experimental report D14. D12a, which is not controversial, was also admitted, but D12, D13, D15 and D19 (all filed by the opponent) were not. Thus, the division's decisions on admittance as a whole do not a priori give an indication of bias towards the opponent.

9.2 Secondly, an opposition division has to exercise its discretion for each document individually, so that it is not uncommon that a document from one party is admitted while one or more documents of the other party are not. This alone is also not an indication for an unfair treatment of the latter party. Moreover, while the right to be heard needs to be respected, this does not mean that a party has a right to have a document admitted simply because a document from the other party was admitted. Likewise, even if some of the discretionary decisions of the division were indeed flawed, as alleged by the appellant, this would not in itself be sufficient evidence for a discriminatory treatment.

10. The appellants challenged the contested decision only in that Dll and D18 should be declared inadmissible, that D14 should be disregarded and that D16 and D17 should be admitted into the proceedings. As the board does not follow either request, the appeal cannot succeed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility