HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

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

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

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

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

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

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • 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
      • 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
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
    • 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
          • 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 web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO 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
      • 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
      • 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
        • 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
  • 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
    • 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
        • 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
      • 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
        • Culture Space A&T 5-10
          • Go back
          • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
            • Go back
            • aqua_forensic
            • LIMINAL
            • MaterialLab
            • Perfect Sleep
            • Proof of Work
            • TerraPort
            • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
            • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • The European Patent Journey
          • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
          • Next generation statements
          • Open storage
          • Cosmic bar
        • Lange Nacht 2023
    • 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
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
  • 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
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
2003
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Official Journal
  4. 2003
  5. 10 - October
  6. Pages 441-451
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
10 - October

Overview

Pages 441-451

Download PDF 
Citation: OJ EPO 2003, 441
Online publication date: 31.10.2003
BOARDS OF APPEAL
Decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal

Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.7 dated 13 June 2003 - T 1026/98 - 3.3.7*

(Translation)

Composition of the board:

Chairman:

R. E. Teschemacher

Members:

B. L. ter Laan

 

B. J. M. Struif

Opponent/appellant: Kureha Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent proprietor/respondent: Kalle Nalo GmbH & Co. KG

Intervener 1: Carsten Nicolaisen GmbH & Co. Kg

Intervener 2: ALFANOVA Deutschland GmbH

Headword: Intervention/KALLE

Article: 105, 107, 112(1)(a) EPC

Rule: 57(4), 60(2) EPC

Keyword: "Intervention in appeal proceedings" - "Continuation of proceedings after withdrawal of the sole appeal" - "Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal"

Headnote:

Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:

I. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?

II. If the answer to question 1 is yes:

Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?

Summary of facts and submissions

I. European patent No. 0 467 039 was granted in respect of application No. 91 108 077.8 with effect from 9 August 1995.

II. Two notices of opposition were filed against the patent, both requesting that it be revoked in full. Opponent 1 withdrew its opposition in proceedings before the opposition division.

III. In a decision dated 25 August 1998, the opposition division found that the patent could be maintained in limited form.

IV. On 23 October 1998, opponent 2 (appellant) filed notice of appeal against this decision, at the same time paying the prescribed fee. On 18 December 1998 it filed a statement of the grounds for its appeal.

V. In the course of the appeal proceedings, two notices of intervention were filed. Intervener 1 then withdrew its intervention. Intervener 2 gave notice of its intervention in a reasoned statement on 22 April 2002, at the same time paying the opposition fee and the appeal fee. It proved that the patent proprietor (respondent) had, in a writ served on 21 January 2002, instituted proceedings against it for infringement of the patent in suit. No objections were made to the admissibility of its intervention, and none are apparent.

VI. In a summons issued on 29 January 2003, the parties were called to oral proceedings scheduled for 16 May 2003.

VII. The appellant and intervener 2 requested that the patent be revoked; the respondent ultimately requested that the patent be maintained on the basis of the set of claims submitted in a letter dated 16 April 2003.

VIII. On 14 May 2003 the appellant withdrew its appeal. In a fax dated 15 May 2003 the board informed the remaining parties that the first issue to be discussed at oral proceedings was whether a decision on the merits of the case could still be taken. It cited relevant board of appeal case law, which featured varying views of the entitlement of a third party who intervened during appeal proceedings to continue the proceedings after withdrawal of the sole appeal.

IX. All that was discussed at oral proceedings was the implications of withdrawal of the appeal for the appeal proceedings. Intervener 2 took the view that the proceedings should continue, submitting an auxiliary request that the following points of law be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

"1. Is an intervener in pending opposition appeal proceedings who has complied with the procedural requirements of Article 105 EPC and paid the opposition fee and the appeal fee entitled to continue the proceedings independently as an appellant after the sole appeal has been withdrawn?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is payment of the appeal fee a necessary condition for the intervener's independent appellant status?"

X. The respondent on the other hand thought that appeal proceedings were terminated when the appeal was withdrawn. It saw no need to refer the matter to the Enlarged Board, as the answers to the above questions were sufficiently clear from existing case law, in particular that of the Enlarged Board.

Reasons for the decision

1. Appeal proceedings are normally terminated when the sole appeal is withdrawn, and there is then no need to decide on the substantive issues (G 8/91, OJ EPO 1993, 346). The question in the present case is whether the situation is different because there was a valid intervention during the appeal proceedings.

2. Case law offers varying answers to this question.

2.1 Recent rulings have been based on the decision in G 4/91 (OJ EPO 1993, 707). In that case, none of the parties to proceedings at first instance had contested the opposition division's decision to maintain the patent. The Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that third parties were not entitled to intervene or to appeal against the opposition division's decision during the appeal period provided for in Article 108 EPC, even if the other conditions for intervention were satisfied. The reason it gave was essentially that the existence of pending proceedings was by definition a prerequisite for intervention under Article 105 EPC. In the absence of an appeal from any of the parties, the proceedings were no longer pending when the notice of intervention was filed.

Subsequently, in G 1/94 (OJ EPO 1994, 787), the Enlarged Board found intervention during appeal proceedings to be admissible. Neither in the wording nor in the purpose of Article 105 EPC could it find an unambiguous answer to the question whether the term "opposition proceedings" as used in that provision also comprised any subsequent appeal proceedings. After consulting the travaux préparatoires, it ultimately admitted intervention during appeal proceedings, as being in keeping with the intention of the legislator (loc. cit., Reasons 8 to 10). It also decided that the intervener could raise fresh grounds for opposition. If the intervener were unable to use all available grounds to defend himself against the patentee's attack, the purpose of intervention would be defeated (loc. cit., Reasons 13). The Enlarged Board did not answer other questions concerning formal aspects of intervention which arose during the referral proceedings, because they ought to be decided in individual cases on the basis of the parties' arguments. That included the matter of whether the intervener was required to pay an appeal fee (loc. cit., Reasons 11).

2.2 On this basis, two divergent decisions were taken shortly afterwards.

First, after the referred question in G 1/94 had been answered, the appeal fee in the case which had led to referral G 6/93 (settled without a decision) was refunded because it was not needed to make the intervention valid (T 27/92 of 25 July 1994, cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 4th ed. 2001, VII.D.5.4.2). For the sake of legal certainty, intervention could not be made subject to any requirements other than those laid down in Article 105 EPC. There was no need to decide whether the intervener, by paying the appeal fee, could influence his legal position to the extent of acquiring independent appellant status (Reasons 6).

This view was explicitly contradicted in T 1011/92 of 16 September 1994 (cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, loc. cit.), where it was decided that an intervener in pending appeal proceedings had to pay both the opposition fee and the appeal fee. In the case in point, the opposition was to be treated as an appeal, the last sentence of Article 105(2) EPC applying mutatis mutandis. The intervener had the rights of an appellant and also had to assume his obligations. He could continue the appeal proceedings independently after withdrawal of the sole appeal (Reasons 3.4 ff).

2.3 Thereafter, unlike T 1011/92 (loc. cit.), most decisions concluded that the appeal fee did not have to be paid to make intervention during appeal proceedings admissible (T 195/93 of 4 May 1995, cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, loc. cit., see Summary of facts II ff; T 467/93 of 13 June 1995, not in OJ EPO, Reasons 2; T 684/92 of 25 July 1995, not in OJ EPO, Reasons 2; T 471/93 of 5 December 1995, cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, loc. cit., Reasons 2.5 ff; T 590/94 of 3 May 1996, cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, loc. cit., Reasons 2.5; T 144/95 of 26 February 1999, cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, loc. cit., Reasons 2.8; T 1001/97 of 25 January 2000, not in OJ EPO, Reasons 6; T 989/96 of 5 July 2001 and T 886/96 of 6 July 2001, both cited in EPO Board of Appeal Case Law in 2001, Special edition of the Official Journal 2002, p. 76).

Conversely, T 517/97 (OJ EPO 2000, 515, Summary of facts IV, Reasons 2 and 9) followed T 1011/92 in finding that the appeal fee had to be paid.

2.4 The trend is less clear in case law concerning the possibility for the intervener to acquire independent appellant status by "voluntarily" paying the appeal fee. Some decisions that have touched on this question have left it open because it was not material to the decision (T 27/92, loc. cit.; T 471/93, loc. cit.; T 590/94, loc. cit.; T 1001/97, loc. cit.).

On the other hand, T 144/95 (loc. cit.) explicitly rejected this possibility, on the grounds that the intervener did not meet the requirements of Article 107, first sentence, EPC and that the time limit for paying the appeal fee set out in Article 108 EPC had expired. The same conclusion was reached in T 989/96 and T 886/96 (loc. cit., citing T 144/95).

3. The intervener based its position primarily on G 1/94 and T 1011/92 (loc. cit.). It held that there was no point in being able to intervene in appeal proceedings if the intervener could not acquire a legal status independently of the appellant/opponent. The whole purpose of intervention was for the assumed infringer to be able to raise existing grounds for revocation in the centralised European opposition procedure and not to be referred to the national revocation procedure. Hence opposition appeal proceedings had to be considered part of opposition proceedings within the meaning of Article 105(1) EPC.

Article 105(2) EPC left intervention in appeal proceedings unregulated. This lacuna had to filled by treating intervention in opposition appeal proceedings as an appeal, the third sentence of Article 105(2) EPC applying mutatis mutandis. At the time of intervention, the intervener was not in a position to meet the formal requirements for an appeal and could not be expected to do so. In that respect, Article 105(2) EPC should mutatis mutandis be seen as a special instance of Article 107, first sentence, EPC, for the scope of which in any case different conclusions could be drawn from the versions in the three official languages. The principle that only the appellant could decide whether his appeal should stand was not applicable here either, because it conflicted with the independent procedural status of the intervener. By paying the appeal fee and stating the grounds for its intervention, the intervener had also clearly indicated that it wished to acquire independent appellant status.

The recent divergent decision in T 886/96 (loc. cit.) was unconvincing in comparison. Furthermore, it was not relevant, as it concerned an appeal by the patent proprietor after revocation of his patent, and accordingly the proceedings had ended in the intervener's favour with the withdrawal of the appeal.

4. The respondent argued that opposition appeal proceedings were judicial proceedings. In accordance with general principles these were instituted by the appellant, who could also terminate them by withdrawing his appeal. The decision in G 1/94 did entail an exception to the adversary principle, as it allowed the intervener to raise new grounds that the appellant/opponent was no longer entitled to introduce into the proceedings without the approval of the patent proprietor. Yet that did not also mean a restriction of the principle of free party disposition, under which proceedings could be terminated by the party who instituted them. In that context, granting the intervener independent procedural status would be a restraint on the rights of the appellant, for whom the entitlement to terminate the proceedings was a mechanism he could use in negotiations with the patent proprietor in order to end a dispute by mutual agreement. Giving the intervener the right to continue the proceedings would restrict the scope for settlements between appellant and respondent and hence between patent proprietor and potential patent infringer.

In the respondent's view, the idea behind G 1/94 (loc. cit.) was simply to give the intervener a chance to use appeal proceedings that were already pending to defend himself against the patent, in the interests of procedural economy. Yet that was no justification for entitling the intervener to continue proceedings against the wishes of the parties when they were no longer pending owing to withdrawal of the appeal. G 1/94 in fact made it clear that without the appellant's appeal there could be no intervention.

Hence there could also be no question of a lacuna in Article 105(2) EPC, the third sentence of which in fact amounted to an exemption, as it made it possible to be a party without filing an independent opposition or appeal. Being an exemption, however, it had to be interpreted narrowly. The present situation had to be seen as analogous to withdrawal of opposition. If that happened at first instance, the EPO could continue opposition proceedings of its own motion in accordance with Rule 60(2) EPC. If it happened at the appeal stage, withdrawal of opposition by the sole appellant immediately terminated the appeal proceedings (G 8/93, OJ EPO 1994, 887). The intervener's view raised the further question whether giving the intervener independent procedural status might even mean that parts of a patent not originally opposed could be attacked by the intervention.

Nor was payment of the appeal fee sufficient to confer independent party status. The appeal fee was only one element of an admissible appeal and could not be taken out of that context. To be valid it had to be paid within the statutory time limit (T 144/95, loc. cit.).

5. The board cannot find a clear answer to the questions at issue here in the existing case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

5.1 None of the parties can base its view on G 1/94 (loc. cit.), not least because that decision explicitly ruled only on the admissibility of intervention in pending appeal proceedings and on the admissible grounds for intervention, deliberately leaving any other aspects to be decided on later by the boards of appeal (see 2.1 above). The Enlarged Board also saw the conflict of interests that exists here. On the one hand there is the interest of a third party threatened with infringement proceedings in being able to mount an effective defence during the central European opposition procedure, allied with the avoidance of unnecessary duplication of work before national courts and the need for a unified decision on the validity of the patent. On the other hand there is the interest of the patent proprietor in avoiding the procedural complications and delay that intervention may entail (loc. cit., Reasons 7 and 13). The legislator intended to make at least some allowance for the latter interest. While providing that an intervention is to be treated as an opposition, he also permitted exceptions to that principle (Article 105(2), last sentence, in conjunction with Rule 57(4) EPC; see Inter-Governmental Conference for the setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents, Minutes of the second meeting of the Co-ordinating Committee, BR/209/72 of 6 June 1972, point 73). Given these varying interests, the Enlarged Board drew no legal conclusions beyond answering the questions referred to it; and because the legal situation is so unclear, even the conclusions in the intervener's favour in its answers are largely based on the intention of the legislator.

5.2 Otherwise, Enlarged Board case law seems relevant in the following respects:

5.2.1 G 2/91 (OJ EPO 1992, 206) cites the general principle of procedural law, discussed at oral proceedings before the present board, that the appellant alone can decide whether the appeal he filed is to stand and can terminate the proceedings by withdrawing his appeal (upheld in G 8/91 and G 8/93, loc. cit.). He thereby takes away the board's power to decide and its authority to "examine the facts" (G 9/92, OJ EPO 1994, 875, Reasons 3). In G 2/91 this applied to the disadvantage of the respondent, who was unable to continue the proceedings after withdrawal of the sole appeal. The question now is whether the same applies to the disadvantage of the intervener. In this context it must be borne in mind that the Enlarged Board in G 4/91 (loc. cit.) did not allow the alleged infringer to institute appeal proceedings himself because it considered intervention possible only if appeal proceedings were pending. The question whether in the present context, too, only the party who instituted appeal proceedings has the authority to decide on their termination can be restated in terms of another question. Is the alleged infringer to be confined to intervening in proceedings concerning the patent's validity which are already pending, or should the fact that such proceedings have become pending be seen as sufficient to make them the alleged infringer's own proceedings in his own right?

5.2.2 In considering this we must not forget that the Enlarged Board in G 1/94 (loc. cit.) regarded the very raising of new grounds for opposition by the intervener as conflicting with the basic concept of the opposition appeal procedure developed in its case law. In G 10/91 (OJ EPO 1993, 420, Reasons 18) the purpose of the inter partes appeal procedure was seen as being mainly to give the losing party the possibility of challenging the opposition division's decision. The Enlarged Board does not think that considering new grounds for opposition is in conformity with this purpose; but it accepted this contradiction in the case of intervention in appeal proceedings so as not to run contrary to the purpose of intervention (G 1/94, loc. cit., Reasons 13). The question is whether such an extension of the purposes of the appeal procedure seems possible only in connection with the facts under consideration and hence with the adversary principle, or also in the context of an appeal board's power to decide and hence of the principle of free party disposition.

5.2.3 Finally, as regards the possibility, in dispute between the parties, of linking independent party status to the payment of the appeal fee, the conflict between adjudication and legislation discussed in G 1/97 (OJ EPO 2000, 322) must be borne in mind. In a codified legal system, the judge cannot substitute himself for the legislator as the need arises. He may certainly find occasion to fill lacunae where situations arise for which the legislator has omitted to provide (loc. cit., Reasons 3(b)). In that respect the intervener, following T 1011/92 (loc. cit.), suggested an analogy with Article 105(2), third sentence, EPC. The respondent countered with the argument that the appeal fee could not be taken out of the context of the other criteria for an admissible appeal, including compliance with the time limit. G 1/97 referred to the formal nature of procedural law, which had to allow parties seeking redress to be fully informed about the conditions for taking action, a purpose for which the legislative route was clearly more appropriate than the purely judicial.

6. As already indicated, on the issues concerning the status of a third party who intervenes during pending appeal proceedings, left open by G 1/94 and answered differently in T 27/92 and T 1011/92, no consistent case law has yet appeared. In the interests of legal certainty, the conditions for instituting, conducting and terminating proceedings need to be clearly regulated, so that it is plain to parties seeking redress what consequences their actions may have. The board therefore considers that a decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal is needed to clarify the legal situation.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

Under Article 112(1)(a) EPC the following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:

1. After withdrawal of the sole appeal, may the proceedings be continued for a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes:

Is entitlement to continue the proceedings conditional on the intervener's compliance with formal requirements extending beyond the explicit criteria for an admissible intervention laid down in Article 105 EPC; in particular, does the appeal fee have to be paid?

 

* The case is pending as G 4/03.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • 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