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

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

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

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

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

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

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

    Go to overview 

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

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

  • News & events

    News & events

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

    Go to overview 

     

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

    Podcast

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

  • Learning

    Learning

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

    Go to overview 

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

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

  • About us

    About us

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

    Go to overview 

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

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 0423/22 24-03-2023
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0423/22 24-03-2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T042322.20230324
Date of decision
24 March 2023
Case number
T 0423/22
Petition for review of
-
Application number
09179826.4
IPC class
B60C 23/04
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 453.2 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

RFID enabled tire control system and method

Applicant name
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Opponent name
MICHELIN Recherche et Technique S.A.
Board
3.2.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 117(1)(d)
European Patent Convention R 117
European Patent Convention R 118
Keywords

Evidence - public prior use

Evidence - hearing witness

Taking of evidence - hearing witness by videoconference

Catchword
Hearing a witness in first instance proceedings by videoconference allowed sufficient interaction between the deciding body, the parties and the witness. Albeit a part of the witness' body language was not visible to the participants, this did not amount to an infringement of the parties' right to be heard since the judgement on the witness' credibility was mainly based on the conclusiveness of his/her testimony and the absence of contradictions within the witness' own testimony, between the testimonies of several witnesses and/or contradictions between the witness' testimony and information derivable from supporting documents (reasons, point 2).
Cited decisions
G 0001/21
T 0393/16
T 1418/17
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal was filed by the patent proprietor (appellant) against the decision of the opposition division to revoke the patent in suit.

II. Following the order of the board's decision T 393/16 in previous appeal proceedings relating to the present case, the opposition division had summoned the witness, Mr Marques, and had heard him during oral proceedings, inter alia on the question of whether, during the prior use "eTire II", the claimed features were disclosed to members of the public.

(a) The oral proceedings and the witness hearing were held by videoconference without the consent of the appellant.

(b) The opposition division came to the conclusion that the prior use "eTire II" had been public.

(c) Moreover, the opposition division accepted the position of the board expressed in T 393/16 and held that the prior use anticipated the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request and of auxiliary requests 1 - 4, respectively, and rendered obvious the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 5.

III. Oral proceedings were held before the board.

(a) The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form based on the main request or one of the five auxiliary requests submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, the appellant requested that the case be remitted to the opposition division with the order to hear the witness, Mr Marques, in person at the premises of the EPO, or alternatively to hear him in person during oral proceedings before the board.

In case the board denied these requests, the appellant requested that the following question be submitted to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

"Ist es im Rahmen eines Verfahrens vor der Einspruchsabteilung mit dem EPÜ vereinbar, einen Zeugen, von dessen Aussage über eine behauptete offenkundige Vorbenutzung der Ausgang des Verfahrens vor der Einspruchsabteilung wesentlich oder ausschließlich abhängt und der überdies ein Mitarbeiter der Muttergesellschaft der Einsprechenden ist, nur per Videokonferenz in den Räumen der Muttergesellschaft der Einsprechenden zu vernehmen, obwohl nicht alle Parteien einer solchen Vernehmung als Videokonferenz zugestimmt haben?"

Finally, the reimbursement of the appeal fee was also requested.

(b) The respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be dismissed.

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

"A tire control system for a vehicle (62) having at least one wheel unit, the wheel unit including a wheel rim (32) and a tire (22) mounted to the wheel rim (32), the control system comprising:

a pass-through portal (50) operatively entered and exited by the vehicle (62);

at least one first antenna (52, 54) positioned within the portal (50) for operatively receiving at least one data transmission,

characterised in that

at least one tire-based RFID tag (10) is mounted to the tire (22) and having a tire serial number stored within a tag memory accessible to an external reader (40);

the first antenna (52, 54) is positioned within the portal (50) for operatively receiving at least one data transmission of the tire serial number from the at least one tire-based RFID tag (10) as the vehicle (62) can move through the portal (50);

at least one first RFID reader (40A, 40B) is coupled to the at least one first antenna (52, 54) for operably reading and storing within a database the tire serial number data; and

a gate mechanism (58) for sensing a movement of the vehicle (62) within the portal (50), the gate mechanism being coupled to the at least one first RFID reader (40A, 40B) for operatively initiating at least one new data collection sequence within the portal (50)."

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the expression "vehicle (26) can move through the portal (50)" is replaced by the expression "vehicle (26) moves through the portal (50)".

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the expression "wherein the tire serial number is unique to the tire (22)" is inserted after "tag memory" in the first paragraph of the characterising portion.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 requires in addition to the stipulations of claim 1 of the main request that the control system comprises the following features:

"at least one vehicle-based RFID tag mounted to the vehicle (62) and having a vehicle serial number stored within a tag memory accessible to an external reader;

at least one second antenna positioned within the portal (50) for operatively receiving data transmission of a the vehicle serial number from the at least one vehicle-based RFID tag;

at least one second RFID reader coupled to the second antenna for operably reading and storing within a database the vehicle serial number data."

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 combines the amendments of auxiliary requests 1 - 3.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 specifies that the gate mechanism for sensing a movement of the vehicle is "a light gate (58)".

V. The appellant's arguments can be summarised as follows:

(a) Hearing the witness by videoconference infringed the appellant's right to be heard.

(i) The Enlarged Board of Appeal held in G 1/21 that the "gold standard" was to hear the witness in person. Deviating from this general principle required a general emergency, which is no longer present; there are no longer any travel restrictions or similar restrictions in place.

(ii) The appellant was not able to judge the credibility of the witness without seeing him in person. In particular, hearing the witness by videoconference prevented the appellant from seeing the witness's body language.

(b) The following particular circumstances rendered it absolutely necessary for the witness to be heard in person:

(i) Whether the prior use was sufficiently proven was crucial for the outcome of the proceedings.

(ii) The witness was an employee of the opponent.

(iii) The witness was located in the opponent's office when he was heard by the opposition division.

(c) The opposition division erred when it considered the prior use "eTire II" to be sufficiently proven, in particular when it took the view that the prior use occurred in public.

(d) The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is novel and inventive over the remaining prior art, the prior use "eTire II" not forming part thereof. The same applies to the claimed subject-matter of auxiliary requests 1 - 5.

VI. The respondent's arguments can be summarised as follows:

(a) The parties' rights to be heard were respected.

(i) Both the opposition division and the parties had the opportunity to ask the witness questions regarding the alleged prior use and the circumstances thereof. Furthermore, they both had the chance to question the witness as to his relationship with the opponent, in order to evaluate his credibility.

(ii) Hearing the witness by videoconference was close to hearing him in person. Although a videoconference was not the "gold standard" within the meaning of G 1/21, it was sufficiently close.

(b) The reasons provided by the appellant do not justify special circumstances requiring the witness to be heard in person:

(i) Any attack in opposition proceedings aims at revoking the patent in suit. Hearing a witness is a suitable and normal practice for proving an instance of prior use and therefore does not constitute a special situation.

(ii) The witness confirmed that he had no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings and therefore it was irrelevant that he was an employee of the opponent.

(iii) The witness was not influenced by the opponent - he was alone in the room during his hearing.

(c) The witness explained that the prior use was public. Furthermore, the opposition division's decision was not only based on the witness's testimony but also on the following further pieces of evidence:

A2 Internet press release entitled "Michelin

Shrinks Its eTire Pressure Monitor"

A2'' Brochure entitled "MICHELIN eTire II System"

A27 Blog by Rich Helms entitled "Running with

the big dogs"

(d) The opposition division correctly deduced from all of the evidence on file, including the witness hearing, that the prior use "eTire II" was public.

(e) Claim 1 of the main request was not novel over the prior use "eTire II", as held by the board in T 0393/16. The same applies to auxiliary requests 1 - 4, whereas auxiliary request 5 was rendered obvious by the prior use "eTire II" in combination with the knowledge of the skilled person.

Hearing of the witness, Mr Marques, by videoconference

1. Article 117(1)(d) and Rule 117 EPC provide a legal basis for hearing a witness by videoconference.

1.1 The President of the EPO stated in the "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 10 November 2020 concerning oral proceedings before examining and opposition divisions, and consultations, by videoconference" that all oral proceedings before opposition divisions shall be carried out in the form of a videoconference unless there are serious reasons for not doing so.

1.2 In a decision dated 15 December 2020, the Administrative Council decided to amend Rules 117 and 118 EPC to allow evidence to be taken by videoconference in proceedings before the EPO. The amendment took effect as of 1 January 2021 (i.e. before the hearing of Mr Marques).

This decision of the Administrative Council was published in OJ 2020, A132, and was explained to the public in the "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 17 December 2020 concerning the taking of evidence by videoconference by examining and opposition divisions" (which was published in OJ 2020, A135). In particular, paragraph 2 of this Notice indicates that if oral proceedings are held by videoconference, evidence must be taken by videoconference as well.

1.3 Hearing a witness by videoconference is hence an alternative to hearing a witness in person, which is provided for within the relevant legal framework of the EPC.

2. Hearing the witness by videoconference did not infringe the appellant's right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC).

2.1 During oral proceedings, participants interact based mainly on arguments that are expressed orally. The same applies to the interaction with a witness when the opposition division (and the parties) pose questions that are answered by the witness.

2.1.1 Both the appellant and the respondent agreed that they had the opportunity to ask questions to the witness in addition to the opposition division. They also had the opportunity to argue their case on the question of whether the prior use was public before the opposition division decided on the issue.

2.1.2 Thus, hearing a witness by videoconference does not substantially limit the interaction between the opposition division, the parties and the witness compared to hearing a witness in the courtroom.

2.2 The appellant, however, argued that it was not able to observe the witness's body language during his hearing, and therefore it had been deprived of the opportunity to objectively judge his credibility. This allegedly amounted to an infringement of its right to be heard.

2.2.1 Firstly, it should be noted that it is the deciding body's responsibility, not the parties', to judge the personal credibility of a witness and the plausibility of a witness's statement.

Thus, the department hearing the witness has to assess thoroughly whether it deems itself able to properly make a judgement on these issues despite the fact that it won't be able to see the witness's whole body and that a person heard at a familiar location via videoconference might feel more comfortable and less affected by the situation than a witness heard in a courtroom. Thus, there might be cases where hearing witnesses in person is the better choice, whether because the alleged facts in respect of which one or more witnesses are to be heard deviate from evidentiary assertions by other parties or from facts which follow from other evidence on file, or for other reasons.

However, it is up to the relevant department to decide which possible way to hear a witness to choose (by members of the department or by a national court, Article 131 and Rule 120 EPC; by the whole department or by one of its members, Rule 119(1) EPC; by videoconference or in person, Rule 117 EPC) (Article 117(2) and Rule 117 EPC). It is also the department's responsibility to carry out the investigation.

In the present case, the opposition division decided to hear the witness by videoconference and hence considered itself able to make a judgement to a sufficient degree on the credibility of the witness, despite the witness hearing taking place by videoconference.

The parties do not play a central role in this process. They do have, according to Rule 119(3) EPC, the right to attend an investigation and they may put relevant questions to the testifying witness. In the present case, the parties had the opportunity to ask the witness questions and did indeed ask the witness questions; this was not contested by the appellant.

2.2.2 Secondly, the credibility of a witness is not determined based largely on their body language and even less on body language outside the frame visible in a videoconference. On the contrary, the credibility of a witness depends primarily on the plausibility and conclusiveness of their testimony and the absence of contradictions, in particular contradictions within the witness's own testimony, but also contradictions between the testimonies of several witnesses and/or contradictions between the witness's testimony and supporting documents or other evidence on file.

Whether the witness's statement is free of contradictions and is in accordance with the information derivable from supporting documents A2, A2'' and A27 was discussed during the oral proceedings and was considered by the opposition division during the evaluation of the witness's testimony and credibility (see the decision under appeal, sections 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).

2.2.3 Thirdly, most of the body language relevant for determining secondary information such as whether a witness is nervous or feels uneasy when responding to specific questions can be perceived in the camera-section visible to the other participants of the videoconference anyway. Facial reactions, and the way the witness answers questions (e.g. reluctantly, self-confidently or too quickly and without reflecting), can often be seen in even greater detail when choosing speaker-view on a screen, as compared to watching a witness from several metres away in a courtroom. Movements of the body outside the camera image section, like trembling knees (if such a thing can be expected during a patent case), may cause movements of other, visible, parts of the body.

The appellant did not give any reason related to the present case as to why the body language not visible during the videoconference could have influenced the opposition division's decision such that it would have come to a different conclusion on the witness's credibility.

2.2.4 However, even if part of the body language could not be seen, this drawback could never affect a party's right to be present and to put questions to the witness (Rule 119(3) EPC) to such an extent that its right to be heard, i.e. the "opportunity to present comments on grounds or evidence" (Article 113(1) EPC), is violated. This opportunity is also given during a videoconference. Such a format does not significantly limit the possibilities of interaction with the witness, which is mainly based on an oral exchange of questions and answers as set out above.

2.2.5 As also stated above in section 2.2.1, it is, then, the responsibility of the department and not of the party to evaluate the evidence and judge the witness's credibility. Should a department feel that a hearing in person is indispensable, it could still summon the witness in personam in a similar manner to the Convention's provision of the option to have a witness re-heard under oath before a national court (Rule 120(2) EPC).

2.3 The above considerations with regard to hearing a witness by videoconference do not - contrary to the appellant's allegation - contradict decision G 1/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

2.3.1 G 1/21 sets out in Reasons 40 that oral proceedings held by videoconference are normally sufficient to comply with the principle of fairness of proceedings and the right to be heard. Oral proceedings held by videoconference allow adequate interaction between the participants based on orally expressed arguments. The Enlarged Board of Appeal hence shares the board's position expressed in section 2.2 above.

2.3.2 The Enlarged Board held that a participant's body language is only an additional side-effect, and therefore its absence still allows sufficient interaction between the participants (see Reasons 42 of G 1/21). The same is true in the case of a witness hearing with regard to providing answers to the posed questions.

2.3.3 Furthermore, the Enlarged Board emphasised that unlike telephone conferences, a videoconference allows a major part of the participant's body language to be seen since their face and the upper part of their chest are visible to all participants of the hearing, albeit on a screen (see Reasons 41 of G 1/21). The current technical possibilities are even better than at the time the Enlarged Board's decision was given and do not hinder the participants of a videoconference in terms of the way they act and react and in terms of perceiving body movements and face colour and changes thereof.

Thus, under the current conditions it cannot be assumed that the Enlarged Board of Appeal would have considered there to be a general obstacle against holding a witness hearing via videoconference.

2.3.4 Whether G 1/21 requires a general emergency in order to hear a witness by videoconference contrary to the parties' requests, does not have to be addressed since G 1/21 does not concern oral proceedings in opposition proceedings nor taking of evidence but instead is limited to oral proceedings in appeal proceedings (see referred question in Reasons 20 of G 1/21).

2.3.5 The appellant's argument that it could not fully follow the witness's body language therefore might be true. However, it does not significantly hinder the party's right to be present and to put relevant questions to the witness.

2.3.6 Whether the opposition division feels in a position to adequately judge the credibility of the witness is another question and one which has to be answered by the opposition division. In the case at hand, it apparently did so and gave reasons why the witness seemed to be credible and why his statement seemed plausible (see also section 3. below).

2.4 The appellant's right to be heard was thus not infringed by the witness being heard by videoconference.

2.5 Since no substantial procedural violation is apparent, the appellant's request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is not accepted.

3. The question remains whether the opposition division made an error of judgement when deciding to hold the witness hearing by videoconference.

3.1 The "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 10 November 2020 concerning oral proceedings before examining and opposition divisions, and consultations, by videoconference" of the President of the EPO allows deviations from the standard of holding oral proceedings by videoconference if "there are serious reasons against holding them by videoconference" (see Article 2(2) of that notice).

3.2 In the opposition proceedings, the appellant argued at the bottom of page 2 of its letter dated 30 July 2021 that:

"(T)the outcome of the opposition proceedings will basically solely depend on whether "eTire II" is a public prior use disclosing the claimed subject matter or not, which is to be assessed on the basis of the statements of the witness.

The statements of the witness and the reliability and credibility of the statements of the witness, who is an employee of the Opponent, are thus crucial for the outcome of the oral proceedings scheduled on Sept. 21-22, 2021.

Therefore, the hearing [of] the witness and the assessment of the statements of the witness is extremely important in this case, and Patentee submits that it is essential that the witness is heard and appears in person before the Opposition Division to get a personal impression of the witness and to ensure a direct and uninfluenced interaction with the witness in the premises of the EPO. Hearing a witness via video-conference is not equivalent to a personal hearing in Patentee's view in that respect."

3.3 The mere fact that the prior use anticipates the claimed subject-matter (if sufficiently proven that it was public) is the default and not the exception when it comes to taking evidence, regardless of the form of the witness hearing. The prior use must be relevant for the outcome of the proceedings, which is also a prerequisite for issuing a decision on the taking of evidence according to Rule 117 EPC. Otherwise, the opposition division would not examine it and summon the witness.

The "importance" of the prior use and the fact that the outcome of the case hinges on the question of whether this prior use was public therefore cannot constitute a "serious reason" within the meaning of the President's notice preventing the opposition division from hearing the witness by videoconference.

3.4 A sufficiently direct and uninfluenced interaction with the witness to evaluate his credibility is - as set out above - also possible when the witness is heard by videoconference. The interaction occurs orally and only a minor part thereof is based on body language that is not visible on the screen.

Once again, this is not a special reason within the meaning of the President's notice that would justify a witness hearing in person.

3.5 The appellant further alleged during the appeal proceedings that a special reason would be the witness being an employee of the opponent and being located in the opponent's office during his hearing.

This, however, was not alleged by the appellant during the opposition proceedings, and therefore the opposition division was not given the opportunity to consider these arguments. In the passage of the appellant's letter cited verbatim above which allegedly contains this argument, the opponent only mentioned that the witness is an employee of the opponent; it did not draw any conclusions from this.

Furthermore, the minutes of the taking of evidence show that the opposition division took this question into consideration during the hearing by specifically asking the witness whether he had any personal or economic interest in the outcome of the proceedings (see the minutes of the taking of evidence, page 4). The appellant, however, did not ask any questions on this, nor did it complain during the hearing that the witness being an employee of the opponent would cast doubt as to his credibility.

The appellant's argument that the witness was located in the opponent's office during his hearing was not raised during the opposition proceedings either. There is no mention in the minutes or in the decision of the opposition division that the appellant complained about the witness being in the opponent's office when this became apparent during the hearing. The minutes of the taking of evidence furthermore show (see pages 2 and 3) that the opposition division made sure that the witness was sitting alone in the room so that he could not be influenced by another person in the course of his testimony, as prescribed in point 8 of the communication from the EPO dated 17 December 2020 concerning the taking of evidence by videoconference by examining and opposition divisions.

3.6 There was also no indication for the opposition division that the testimony might contradict other evidence on file or the statements of other witnesses to be heard, nor were there other warning signs that might have prompted the opposition division not to hold the hearing via videoconference. The mere fact that the witness was an employee of the opponent did not necessarily cast doubts on the witness's reliability that were serious enough for a hearing by videoconference to be ruled out.

3.7 It is therefore not credible that the opposition division did not consider all available arguments when it did not concede special reasons within the meaning of the President's notice. The decision to hear the witness by videoconference was therefore not erroneous.

4. The appellant further argued that the opposition division erred in considering the prior use to have occurred in public. In its opinion, the company Challenger was bound by a secrecy agreement such that the prior use "eTire II" should be disregarded.

4.1 The opposition division held - taking all available information into account - that Challenger was not bound by a secrecy agreement, and that therefore the prior use occurred in public (see Reasons 4.2.3), and it gave reasons for its decision (see Reasons 4.2.4 - 4.2.6).

4.2 Regarding the review by a board of the evaluation of evidence carried out by a deciding body of first instance, the board notes that the principle of free evaluation of evidence applies to all departments of the EPO and thus also impacts the review in appeal proceedings.

The board therefore adheres to its practice set out in T 1418/17, Reasons 1.3. Unless the law has been misapplied (e.g. if the wrong standard of proof has been applied), a board of appeal should overrule a department of first instance's evaluation of evidence and replace it with its own only if it is apparent from that department's evaluation that it:

(i) disregarded essential points,

(ii) also considered irrelevant matters or

(iii) violated the laws of thought, for instance in the form of logical errors and contradictions in its reasoning (see T 1418/17, Reasons 1.3).

This does not contradict the findings in T 1604/16 that the review of a board is not limited to points of law but extends to points of fact (see Reasons 3.1.7), as set out in T 42/19 (see Reasons 3.3).

In the current case, the board sees no reason not to adhere to the evaluation of evidence by the opposition division, keeping in mind that it is a process that is first and foremost entrusted to the deciding body that has to weigh all the available and relevant evidence and give reasons why it is convinced that a certain fact is proven or not.

4.3 In the current case, the opposition division had a first-hand impression of the probative value of the witness testimony, which is not available to the same extent to the board. Based on this witness testimony and the supporting documents on file, the opposition division logically explained why it deemed the prior use to have occurred in public. The reasoning took into account the essential points and did not consider irrelevant matter. Moreover, the board is not aware of any argument raised by the appellant during the opposition proceedings that was not considered by the opposition division.

4.4 There is therefore no reason to deviate from the evaluation of evidence by the opposition division and re-evaluate the testimony, or hear the witness again. Instead, the board bases its decision on the facts established by the opposition division, namely that the system "eTire II" was used by the company Challenger, anticipating all of the features of the claimed invention, and that the employees of Challenger were not bound by a secrecy agreement. The board thus shares the legal conclusion that a prior use of the claimed invention occurred in public.

Referral of a question of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

5. The board does not consider it necessary to refer the question of law formulated by the appellant (cf. section III(a) of the Facts and Submissions) to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

5.1 Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC, a referral of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is only admissible if a decision is required to ensure uniform application of the law or if a point of law of fundamental importance arises. The answer to the referred question should not be merely of theoretical or general interest; rather, it must be essential for reaching a decision on the appeal in question (see, for example, G 3/98 (OJ EPO 2001, 62), Reasons 1.2.3, or Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, V-B.2.3.3).

Under Article 21 RPBA 2020, a question is to be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal if the referring board considers it necessary to deviate from an interpretation or explanation of the Convention contained in an earlier opinion or decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

5.2 The board does not consider a decision of the Enlarged Board to be required for the above purposes.

5.2.1 The board does not intend to deviate from an earlier decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see section 2.3 above).

5.2.2 There is also no conflicting case law of the boards of appeal as alleged by the appellant.

5.2.3 Finally, the question is neither of fundamental importance nor relevant for a uniform application of law.

The circumstances of the witness hearing defined in the question are very specific (hearing by videoconference, witness is an employee of the opponent, witness is located at the opponent's office during the hearing) and hence will not apply to the majority of witness hearings during first-instance proceedings.

Main request

Novelty over the prior use "eTire II" (Article 54 EPC)

6. The subject-matter of claim 1 is anticipated by the prior use "eTire II".

6.1 As the board held in decision T 0393/16, the subject-matter of claim 1 is not novel over the prior use "eTire II" (see the entirety of paragraph 1 of the Reasons of T 0393/16).

6.2 The appellant did not challenge this decision; it only argued that the prior use was not public and hence was not prior art under Article 54 EPC.

6.3 The board - as set out above - sees no reason to re-evaluate the evidence on file and in particular the hearing of the witness. Instead it accepts the opposition division's decision that the prior use occurred in public.

6.4 There is therefore no reason to deviate from the opposition division's decision that the main request does not comply with Article 54 EPC.

Auxiliary requests 1 - 5

7. With regard to auxiliary requests 1 - 5 (which correspond to the auxiliary requests on which the decision of the opposition division was based), the board notes that the appellant did not identify errors in the opposition division's decision but instead merely referred to the entirety of its arguments presented in the first-instance proceedings and the summary of these arguments given by the opposition division (see sections 5 - 9 of the statement of grounds of appeal).

7.1 Appeal proceedings are not intended to be a continuation of first-instance proceedings. The primary object of the appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner (see Article 12(2) RPBA 2020). Hence, it is up to the appellant to identify flaws in the appealed decision.

7.2 The unspecific reference to the entire contents of a letter filed during first-instance proceedings does not allow the specific errors of the opposition division in its decision to be inferred. The same applies to a summary of all of the arguments raised by the appellant with regard to the auxiliary requests; the board is unable to distinguish which of these arguments was convincing but not accepted by the opposition division.

It is not the board's responsibility to re-examine the entire case as presented by the parties in the opposition proceedings.

7.3 Thus, the board is not aware of any reason why it should deviate from the opposition division's decision with regard to auxiliary requests 1 - 5.

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