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

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

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

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

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

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

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

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • About us

    About us

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

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t950664eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0664/95 (Valve seat recession/LUBRIZOL) 21-04-1998
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0664/95 (Valve seat recession/LUBRIZOL) 21-04-1998

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T066495.19980421
Date of decision
21 April 1998
Case number
T 0664/95
Petition for review of
-
Application number
86905065.8
IPC class
C10L 1/14
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 714.12 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Fuel Products

Applicant name
The Lubrizol Corporation
Opponent name
BP Chemicals (Additives) Ltd
Board
3.3.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Keywords
Inventive step (yes) - alleged effect made credible - additional effect
Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0197/86
T 0002/83
Citing decisions
-

I. This appeal lies from the Opposition Division's interlocutory decision, announced orally on 16 May 1995, with the reasoned decision being issued on 7 June 1995, that, account being taken of the amendments made by the Patent Proprietor (Respondent) during the opposition proceedings, European patent No. 0 233 250 and the invention to which it relates were found to meet the requirements of the EPC.

The decision was based on Claims 1 to 38 and pages 2 to 25. of the description provided during the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division and annexed to the decision under appeal.

The only independent claims read:

"1. A fuel composition for internal combustion engines comprising a major amount of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel and a minor amount sufficient to reduce valve seat recession when the fuel is used in an internal combustion engine of

(A) at least one hydrocarbon-soluble alkali or alkaline earth metal-containing composition, and

(B) at least one hydrocarbon-soluble ashless dispersant in the form of an acylated, nitrogen-containing compound having a substituent of at least 30 aliphatic carbon atoms made by reacting a carboxylic acid acylating agent with at least one amino compound containing at least one

-NH-

group, said acylating agent being linked to said amino compound through an imido, amido, amidine, or acyloxy ammonium linkage; wherein the weight ratio of (A) to (B) is from 4:0.1 to 1:4, and wherein the fuel composition contains less than 1% by volume of lubricating oil."

"36. Use of a fuel composition according to any preceding claim for reducing valve seat recession in an internal combustion engine."

"37. An internal combustion engine operating with a fuel composition according to any one of claims 1 to 35."

and

"38. A process for the preparation of a fuel composition for internal combustion engines which comprises combining a major amount of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel and a minor amount sufficient to reduce valve seat recession when the fuel is used in an internal combustion engine of

(A) a hydrocarbon soluble alkali metal or alkaline earth metal-containing composition,

(B) a hydrocarbon-soluble ashless dispersant in the form of an acylated, nitrogen-containing compound having a substituent of at least 30 aliphatic carbon atoms made by reacting a carboxylic acid acylating agent with at least one amino compound containing at least one

-NH-

group, said acylating agent being linked to said amino compound through an imido, amido, amidine, or acyloxy ammonium linkage; and optionally,

(C) a member selected from:

(1) lead scavengers;

(2) hydrocarbon-soluble components selected from aluminum containing compositions, silicon containing compositions, molybdenum containing compositions, lithium containing compositions, calcium containing compositions, magnesium containing compositions and mixtures thereof; and

(3) hydrocarbon-soluble transition metal containing compositions and mixtures thereof;

wherein the weight ratio of (A) to (B) is from 4:0.1 to 1:4, and wherein the fuel composition contains less than 1% by volume of lubricating oil".

II. The Opposition Division found that the claimed subject-matter was novel and inventive over the cited prior art.

More particularly, the Opposition Division considered that document (1), US-A-3 955 938, which is concerned with sodium containing fuel additives reducing valve seat recession, represented the closest state of the art and that the problem to be solved was the provision of fuel additives for reducing valve seat recession which additionally exhibit improved stability and water tolerance.

Since document (1) was silent about the problem of stability and water tolerance caused by emulsion formation and since it was made credible with the data from demulsification tests according to ASTM D-1094, submitted by the Respondent in his letter of 13 April 1995 and during the oral proceedings (see Annex 4 to the contested decision), that the claimed fuel compositions show improved water tolerance characteristics when a sodium- or a potassium-containing composition (A) is used in combination with an ashless dispersant (B), as compared to when only the sodium salt is used alone, the Opposition Division found that the claimed fuel compositions were not obviously derivable from the cited prior art.

III. During the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal, which took place on 21 April 1998, the Respondent submitted a set of 38 claims as an "auxiliary request".

IV. The Appellant (Opponent) argued that the claimed compositions differed from the compositions described in document (1) and from those described in document (20), US-A-4 129 508, only by the choice of the ashless dispersant and that the selection of a known ashless dispersant, for which a surprising effect had not been shown, could not form the basis for inventive step.

Document (20) was referred to for the first time in the Appellant's reply to a communication of the Board of Appeal pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.

Moreover, the Appellant submitted that the newly cited document (20) represented a more relevant prior art than document (1) and, consequently, that document (20) qualified as a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step.

Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that the claimed compositions were obvious over the combined teaching of document (1) and document (8), US-A-3 443 918 (mentioned in the patent in suit and cited during opposition proceedings), from which it was known that the additives used in the claimed compositions as ashless dispersants display highly desirable non-emulsifying properties in fuel compositions.

Additionally, the Appellant contested the validity of the data submitted by the Patentee during the opposition proceedings, since no comparison had been made with fuel compositions containing an hydrocarbon-soluble alkali or alkaline earth metal and an ashless dispersant, and since demulsification properties had not been shown for the broad scope of the claims.

The Appellant also provided data from a demulsification test according to ASTM D-1094 in his letters of 18 and 25. March 1998.

Finally, the Appellant submitted a copy of data from a demulsification test according to ASTM D-1094 filed by the Respondent in connection with a divisional application of the patent in suit.

V. The Respondent (Proprietor of the patent) submitted that the Appellant had failed to submit any credible experimental evidence to contradict the data he submitted during the opposition proceedings.

Moreover, the Respondent filed additional data to show that, from the additives mentioned in document (1), only ashless dispersants provide improved stability and water tolerance, and that the combination of a metal-containing composition (A) with an ashless dispersant (B) performs better than either (A) or (B) alone.

Since it was not suggested in any of the cited prior art documents that the combined use of (A) and (B) would inhibit emulsion formation, he argued that the claimed fuel compositions were not derivable from the prior art.

VI. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that European patent No. 0 233 250 be revoked.

The Respondent requested, as a main request, that the appeal be dismissed and that the patent be maintained in the version as annexed to the decision under appeal. Alternatively, he requested, as an auxiliary request, that the patent be maintained on the basis of the set of claims submitted during the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Main request

2.1. The Board is satisfied that the contested patent, in its amended form, meets the requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC and that the claimed subject-matter is novel in view of the cited prior art. Since this was not contested, no detailed reasoning needs to be given.

2.2. Inventive step

2.2.1. The Appellant argued that the teaching of document (20) rather than the teaching of document (1) qualified as the most pertinent prior art in assessing inventive step.

Document (1) teaches that sodium containing additives can be incorporated in gasoline and that such additives are effective in inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession when the engine operates on lead-free gasoline (column 1, lines 54 to 58). It also teaches that other additives conventionally employed in gasolines, such as ashless dispersants, can be present in the final gasolines (column 4, lines 21 to 29).

Document (20) relates to demulsifier additives for use in fuels coming into contact with water, especially during storage and/or handling reclaiming operations (column 1, lines 11 to 18), which additives contain at least one demulsifier additive comprising (i) one or more reaction products of a hydrocarbon-substituted succinic acid or anhydride with one or more polyalkylene glycols or monoethers thereof, (ii) one or more organic basic metal salts, and (iii) one or more alkoxylated amines (column 2, lines 18 to 26).

Although document (20) does not explicitly mention the problem of valve seat recession, the Appellant was of the opinion that it was inherent to the fuel compositions described therein that they exhibit reduced valve seat recession, since they contain an organic basic metal salt. Moreover, since alkoxylated amines are known ashless dispersants, he was of the opinion that document (20) teaches that compositions containing an organic basic metal salt and an ashless dispersant act as demulsifiers in fuels.

The Appellant therefore was of the opinion that the fuel compositions described in document (1) as well as those described in document (20) exhibit reduced valve seat recession properties and that the claimed compositions differ therefrom only by the selection of a specific class of ashless dispersants. Since document (20) additionally refers to the emulsification problem of fuel compositions coming into contact with water, he concluded that document (20) represented a more relevant prior art than document (1).

2.2.2. However, document (20) teaches only that additive compositions containing the totality of the three components (i) to (iii) have demulsifying properties in fuels, and is completely silent about the properties an organic basic metal salt (ii), as such, or an alkoxylated amine (iii), as such, could give to fuel compositions. Furthermore, the teaching in column 10, lines 28 to 30 and 43 to 46, that the additive compositions containing the totality of the three components (i) to (iii) are in certain preferred fuel compositions combined with an ashless dispersant and that the weight ratio of the demulsifier to the ashless dispersants is generally about 0.1 to 10.0, is at least a strong indication that none of the components (i) to (iii) is taught to have ashless dispersants properties.

Moreover, for determining the disclosure of a document on an objective basis, it is not the possible inherent properties of components described in a document when considered out of context which is relevant, but what information a skilled person would actually derive from the teaching of that document.

Since the problem of valve seat recession is not addressed in document (20) and since the latter does not teach that ashless dispersants have demulsifying properties, the Board finds that a skilled person looking for demulsifying fuels containing a hydrocarbon-soluble alkali or alkaline earth metal-containing composition as an additive for inhibiting valve seat recession would not have taken its teaching into consideration, and, consequently, that document (20) cannot qualify as the most pertinent state of the art.

Since document (1) is the only cited document teaching that metal containing additives are effective in fuel compositions for inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession and also the most pertinent state of the art acknowledged in the description, the Board does not see any reason not to start from the technical problem actually described in the patent in suit in relation to the closest state of the art indicated therein.

2.2.3. According to the patent in suit fuel compositions containing sodium salts of organic acids have a tendency to emulsify water and, consequently, with some sodium salts an undesirable extraction of the sodium into the water occurs (page 3, lines 24 to 27).

Consequently, in view of the teaching of document (1), the problem underlying the present invention must be seen in the provision of other fuel compositions which inhibit the occurrence of valve seat recession and which additionally exhibit water tolerance (see the patent in suit, page 4, lines 24 to 26).

2.2.4. It has never been contested that in examples 1 to 21 of the patent in suit it has been made credible that the combined use of a hydrocarbon-soluble alkali or alkaline earth metal-containing composition and a hydrocarbon-soluble ashless dispersant as defined in Claim 1 decreases the octane requirement increase (ORI) due to the lessening of deposits of carbonaceous-metal nature and, consequently, that it inhibits the occurrence of valve seat recession.

Moreover, it has never been contested that the stability and water tolerance of fuels can suitably be shown using the demulsification tests according to ASTM D-1094.

The Appellant contested, however, that the data from the demulsification test according to ASTM D-1094 provided by the Respondent in the opposition and appeal proceedings was suitable for showing an unexpected behaviour of the claimed fuel compositions, because fuel compositions containing a sodium-containing composition and an ashless dispersant, in general, were known from document (1) and, consequently, in order to establish that a specific class of ashless dispersants is inventive, the experimental evidence needs to show that this specific class is better than the general class.

However, document (1) teaches only that gasoline compositions containing sodium as an additive, which inhibits the occurrence of valve seat recession, may contain other additives conventionally used in gasolines, and that one such additive is the ashless dispersant, and does not specify which properties an ashless dispersant provides to such compositions or in which weight ratios to the sodium the ashless dispersants should be contained. Therefore, the actual disclosure of this document does not extend to the teaching that ashless dispersants in general demulsify fuels containing sodium as an additive inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession.

The Appellant also referred to example 2 of document (1), which describes engine tests in which a low-lead fuel is used in a car which is lubricated with a crankcase motor oil containing an ashless dispersant. Since some lubricant penetrates in the fuel he concluded that document (1) disclosed fuel compositions containing a sodium derivative and an ashless dispersant.

However, since such a possibly occasional short-term existence of a fuel containing the components (A) and (B) would neither teach a skilled person which properties the ashless dispersant would provide to the fuel nor in which weight ratio to the sodium the ashless dispersant should be present, a skilled person could not get any hint therefrom that an ashless dispersant would have demulsifying properties.

The Board therefore considers that the information contained in document (1) is restricted to the teaching that sodium-containing gasoline compositions may contain any of the additives cited in column 4, lines 22 to 29.

Since according to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the nature of the comparison with the closest state of the art must be such that the effect is convincingly shown to have its origin in the distinguishing feature of the invention (T 197/86 OJ EPO, 1989, 371, point 6.1.3), in order to show that, in comparison with compositions containing only a metal derivative, the claimed fuel compositions additionally have improved stability and water tolerance, it is sufficient to make a comparison with fuel compositions containing a metal derivative only.

2.2.5. Consequently, since the data from the demulsification test according to ASTM D-1094 provided by the Respondent in the opposition and appeal proceedings sufficiently show that

- fuels containing 0.24 g/l or 0.96 g/l respectively of a sodium component having a metal content of 2.50% by weight and 0.06 g/l (84 ppm) of an ashless dispersant according to Claim 1 have better demulsifying properties than fuels containing only 0.24 g/l or 0.96 g/l respectively of the sodium component (Tables I and II provided by the Respondent in his letter of 13 April 1995),

- fuels containing 0.24 g/l of a potassium salt of a branched chain alkylated sulfonic acid having a metal content of 3.8% by weight and 0.06 g/l of an ashless dispersant according to Claim 1 have better demulsifying properties than fuels containing 0.24 g/l of the potassium component (Annex 4 to the contested decision),

- fuels containing 0.24 g/l of a sodium component having a metal content of 2.50% by weight respectively of a potassium component having a metal content of 4.0 % by weight and 0.06 g/l (84 ppm) of an additive other than an ashless dispersant have no better demulsifying properties than fuels containing 0.24 g/l of the sodium or potassium component (Tables III and IV provided by the Respondent in his letter of 19 March 1998), and

- the demulsifying properties of fuels containing only 0.06 g/l (84 ppm) of an ashless dispersant according to Claim 1 are inferior to those of fuels free of components (A) and (B) (Table V submitted with letter of 27 March 1998),

the Board finds that it has been made credible that through the combined use of a component (A) with a component (B), satisfactory demulsifying properties are obtained which could not have been obtained with the use of either component (A) or component (B) alone.

2.2.6. This finding is not contradicted by the data from the demulsification tests according to ASTM D-1094 provided by the Appellant in his letters of 18 and 25 March 1998, which was submitted in an attempt to show that an anti-valve seat recession additive does not in fact cause severe problems with water tolerance, the addition of an ashless dispersant according to the invention has no apparent beneficial effect at all, and the ashless dispersants according to the invention are no better in terms of water tolerance than other ashless dispersants not claimed.

In these demulsification tests the maximum concentration of the ashless dispersants was 43.5 ppm, contrary to the teaching in the patent in suit (page 22, lines 13 to 15) that the claimed fuels generally contain as a sufficient amount from 50 to 500 ppm, preferably from 80 to 400 ppm, of the ashless dispersant. Therefore, this data from the Respondent's demulsification tests is not suitable to show that the addition of an ashless dispersant according to the patent in suit has no beneficial effect.

Moreover, through a comparison of the time taken for the mixture to separate back into two separate layers, the data shows that the break time of a fuel containing 113 ppm of a potassium component inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession is double the break time of a fuel not containing such an agent and, consequently, this data is also not suitable for showing that the addition of an anti-valve seat recession additive would not cause severe water tolerance problems.

Additionally, since the prior art does not actually disclose fuel compositions containing a valve seat recession reducing agent and an ashless dispersant agent as demulsifier, it is not relevant whether other ashless dispersants than the claimed ones provide analogous demulsifying properties, as the Appellant attempted to show with this data and with the data provided by the Respondent in connection with a divisional application of the present patent in suit.

Finally, since the data provided by the Appellant is not suitable for showing that the addition of an ashless dispersant according to the patent in suit has no beneficial effect, this data is also unable to support his submission that demulsification properties had not been shown for the broad scope of the claims, for which submission the Appellant had the onus of proof.

2.2.7. The Board therefore concludes that the Respondent has shown that the claimed fuel compositions combine water tolerance with a significant reduction in valve seat recession.

2.2.8. The Appellant also submitted that the data provided by the Respondent is not suitable for showing that water tolerance is obtained in the complete broadly claimed scope.

It is a generally accepted principle that the onus of proof is on the Party making such submission. Since in the present case the data provided by the Appellant was not suitable to show which combinations of component (A) and component (B) were suitable and which were not suitable to provide fuels having the desired properties, the Board concludes that the Appellant's submission was not sufficiently supported.

2.2.9. Therefore, in assessing inventive step, the question arises whether, in view of document (1), it was obvious for a skilled person to select an ashless dispersant as defined in Claim 1 when trying to solve the technical problem set out above.

2.2.10. It has never been contested that document (1) teaches that gasoline compositions containing a sodium containing additive effective in inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession may contain other additives conventionally employed in gasolines, that one of those additives may be an ashless dispersant and that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 were well known (see the patent in suit, page 9, lines 5 to 7). The Appellant concluded from this that it would have been obvious for a skilled person that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 were one group of components which could be used. However, according to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal, in order to demonstrate obviousness it is not sufficient that a skilled person could have interpreted document (1) in such a way that the fuel compositions described therein may contain an ashless dispersant, but it must be made credible that a skilled person would have chosen the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 (see T 2/83, OJ EPO, 1984, 265, Reason 7). Because in document (1) there is not the slightest hint that ashless dispersants, let alone those according to Claim 1, have demulsifying properties, the Board concludes that from the teaching of document (1) alone it would not have been obvious to select such ashless dispersants.

2.2.11. The question still remains whether it was suggested in any of the other cited prior art documents that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 have demulsifying properties.

Since document (8) is concerned with the use of alkenyl succinimides in fuel compositions as deposit-suppressing agents and as detergents (column 1, lines 26 to 30, and column 2, lines 53 and 54), and since in column 2, lines 54 to 61, it is taught that the alkenyl succinimides "... also display highly desirable non-emulsifying properties in fuel compositions. A disadvantage, common to many surface-active additives, is the property of forming undesirable emulsions of water with the hydrocarbon stocks in which they are used. The alkenyl succinimides of this invention show very low emulsifying propensities in hydrocarbon fuels", the Appellant concluded that it was suggested therein that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 have demulsifying properties in fuels.

However, since from document (8) it may only be deduced that the alkenyl succinimides have non-emulsifying or very low emulsifying properties and not that such detergents would have demulsifying properties, the Board finds that it was not suggested therein that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 would provide water tolerance to fuel compositions, let alone that the combination of a hydrocarbon-soluble alkali or alkaline earth metal-containing composition (A) with an ashless dispersant (B), as defined in Claim 1, would have water tolerance over either the salt (A) or the dispersant (B) alone.

Additionally, since document (20) does not mention ashless dispersants according to Claim 1, a skilled person could not have got a hint about the demulsifying properties of the ashless dispersants (B) from this document either.

2.2.12. The Board therefore concludes that, starting from the fuel compositions described in document (1) as the most relevant prior art, a skilled person would have had no incentive to take the teaching of document (8) and/or document (20) into consideration. Consequently, the claimed compositions were not obviously derivable from the combined teaching of documents (1), (8) and (20).

2.2.13. Since the Appellant consistently used a different starting point for challenging inventive step, the Board finds it appropriate to point out that the outcome of the assessment of inventive step would not have been any different if the teaching of document (20) had been considered as the most relevant starting point, because,

(i) in view of document (20), the problem to be solved would have been the provision of fuel compositions having improved demulsifying properties and reduced valve seat recession;

(ii) although a skilled person could have deduced from document (1) that sodium containing additives in gasolines are effective in inhibiting the occurrence of valve seat recession, in none of the cited documents was it suggested that the ashless dispersants according to Claim 1 would demulsify fuel compositions containing such sodium containing additives; and

(iii) therefore, it was not obviously derivable from the teaching of document (20), taken alone or in combination with the teaching of document (1), that the claimed fuel compositions combine a significant reduction in valve seat recession with improved stability and water tolerance.

2.2.14. The Appellant also wanted Claim 1 to contain the restriction that the claimed fuels contain the amounts of ashless dispersants as mentioned on page 22, lines 13 to 15, of the patent in suit.

The Board cannot accept this objection either, since it is not excluded from that passage of the patent in suit, stating that generally fuels will be prepared to contain from about 50 to about 500 ppm, preferably from about 80 to about 400 ppm, of ashless dispersant, that some specific combinations of component (A) and component (B) outside those weight ranges would not have the desired properties.

Moreover, in the Board's judgement any fuel containing a combination of component (A) with component (B) which does not lead to the desired properties is excluded from the wording of Claim 1 by the requirement that the fuel must contain "a minor amount sufficient to reduce valve seat recession when the fuel is used in an internal combustion engine" (emphasis added).

2.2.15. Claims 2 to 35, which represent preferred embodiments of Claim 1, and Claims 36, 37 and 38 derive their patentability from that of Claim 1.

2.2.16. The Board therefore concludes that none of the claimed subject-matter is obviously derivable from the cited prior art documents.

3. In view of the above and since the description is duly adapted to the set of claims, the grounds for revoking the patent in suit do not prejudice the maintenance of the patent according to the main request.

4. In the light of the above findings, there is no need to consider the auxiliary request.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility