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

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

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

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

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

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

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

    Go to overview 

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

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

  • News & events

    News & events

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

    Go to overview 

     

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

    Podcast

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

  • Learning

    Learning

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

    Go to overview 

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

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

  • About us

    About us

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

    Go to overview 

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

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

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

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 1760/11 ((-)--'Omeprazole Mg/ASTRAZENECA) 16-11-2012
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 1760/11 ((-)--'Omeprazole Mg/ASTRAZENECA) 16-11-2012

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T176011.20121116
Date of decision
16 November 2012
Case number
T 1760/11
Petition for review of
-
Application number
00108480.5
IPC class
C07D 401/12
A61K 31/44
A61P 1/04
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 587.95 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Unpublished
Application title

Magnesium salt of the (-)-enantiomer of omeprazole and its use

Applicant name
AstraZeneca AB
Opponent name

Hexal AG

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Mepha AG

STADA Arzneimittel AG

Pinewood Laboratories Limited

ETHYPHARM

Actavis Group hf.

Lupin Limited

Zentiva a.s.

Generics [UK] Limited

Ratiopharm GmbH

lA Pharma GmbH

Board
3.3.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 24
Keywords
Partiality of chairman (no)
Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0002/08
G 0001/05
Citing decisions
T 0833/11
T 1677/11
T 1872/14
T 0184/16
T 2078/17

I. The procedure under Article 24(3), (4) EPC leading to the present decision resulted from an objection of suspected partiality raised in the course of the oral proceedings held from 13 to 16 November 2012 in the appeal T 1760/11.

II. Towards the end of the third day of oral proceedings, on 15 November 2012, after the parties had been informed that the board had come to the conclusion that the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 met the requirements of the EPC, respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13 requested the referral of the following two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

"1. In case where there is more than one feasible starting point, is it admissible, contrary to T 21/08, to find an inventive step by applying the problem solution approach starting from only one of these starting points without considering the others?

2. In particular, is it admissible in a case relating to a patent granted on a divisional application, to ignore the starting point identified by the Appeal Board in the technically closely related parent case (here: T 401/04)?"

As an auxiliary request, the same respondents requested to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from document (1) as the closest prior art.

III. After both requests had been rejected, respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 10 to 13 raised an objection under Rule 106 EPC in conjunction with Article 112a(2) (c) EPC, which was formulated in writing as follows:

"We hereby raise an objection under R. 106 EPC since we were denied the opportunity to address inventive step starting from Dl as closest prior art during oral proceedings. This constitutes a violation of the right to be heard."

IV. Owing to the fact that the chairman of the board had denied their request for an adjournment of oral proceedings until the next day in order to formulate said objection under Rule 106 EPC, respondents 1 and 12 objected to the chairman of the board under Article 24(3) EPC because of suspected partiality.

V. On the following day, on 16 November 2012, after this objection was found to be admissible by the board in its original composition, the chairman objected to (hereinafter referred to as former chairman) was replaced by his alternate for the purpose of deciding on allowability (Article 24(4) EPC). Oral proceedings were resumed by the board in its new composition. In accordance with Article 3(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (see Supplement to OJ EPO 1/2012, 38 to 49) an invitation was issued to the former chairman in order to give him the opportunity to present his comments as to whether there were any reasons for his exclusion. The parties were informed thereof.

VI. The reply of the former chairman reads as follows:

"Since [the representative of respondents 1 and 12] had explained orally that he intended to raise an objection under R. 106 EPC on the ground that he had not had the opportunity to present in case regarding inventive step of the first auxiliary request starting from document (1) as closest state of the art, I thought that fifteen minutes were sufficient to write down his objection.

We were at the end of the third day of oral proceedings and we were still discussing the first auxiliary request. I had therefore to see that the parties have sufficient time to present possibly their case on the second, third and fourth auxiliary requests so that their right to be heard in that respect be not violated."

VII. The parties were given the opportunity to present their arguments after having received and read the reply.

VIII. The arguments of respondents 1 and 12 can be summarised as follows:

Their request to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from document (1) was rejected shortly before 20:00 hrs. Respondents 1 and 12 then informed the board that they wished to raise an objection under Rule 106 EPC. In view of the fact, that interpretation was no longer available after 20:00 hrs, the former chairman initially indicated that he intended to adjourn oral proceedings in order to discuss the objection under Rule 106 EPC on the next day. However, the former chairman changed his mind when respondents 4 and 6, upon request, agreed to continue oral proceedings without interpretation. The former chairman then stated that he considered 15 minutes to be sufficient to put the objection under Rule 106 EPC in writing. Despite the fact that respondents 1 and 12 objected that 15 minutes were inappropriate, and asked for adjournment of oral proceedings until the next day in order to prepare the objection under Rule 106 EPC, the former chairman insisted that the respondents put their objection in writing within 15 minutes, and indicated that he intended to bring oral proceedings to a close at 21:00 hrs.

The allocated time of 15 minutes could not be considered to be an appropriate time for the preparation of an objection pursuant to Rule 106 EPC. Contrary to the allegation of the appellant, respondents 1 and 12 had not envisaged such an objection at lunchtime, but only announced their intention to submit a point of law to be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. There had thus been no time to prepare the objection before the board's refusal of the respondents' request to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from document (1).

The refusal to allow the respondents 1 and 12 appropriate time to carefully formulate a procedurally important objection and to coordinate with the other respondents conveyed the former chairman' s predetermination to reject the objection under Rule 106 EPC without proper consideration of the arguments of the respondents and to bring oral proceedings to a close before 21:00 hrs. Had the former chairman had an open mind, he would have acted differently.

The written reply of the former chairman did not remove the suspicion of partiality. No reasons were given why 15 minutes were regarded as appropriate time and why the oral proceedings could reasonably be expected to come to a close at 21:00 hrs. The reply was also contradictory, since no reason had been given as to why the fact that further auxiliary requests might need to be discussed on the following day necessarily implied that the request for adjournment to properly prepare and present the objection under Rule 106 EPC should be rejected. Moreover, procedural efficiency could not be regarded as valid justification to deny a party' s right to be heard on an objection under Rule 106 EPC.

IX. Respondent 2 added with regard to the reply of the former chairman that the first auxiliary request had been found to be allowable and that there was no need to consider further auxiliary requests. Respondent 6 submitted in addition that the former chairman had exerted pressure to continue the oral proceedings without interpretation.

X. The appellant's arguments may be summarised as follows:

Referring to the decision of the Enlarged Board of appeal G 2/08 of 15 June 2009, the appellant noted that the respondents had not submitted evidence of actual partiality of the former chairman. Therefore, it was to be determined if the circumstances of the case would allow a reasonably objective and informed person to conclude that the respondents 1 and 12 might have good reason to suspect the partiality of the former chairman.

In conducting oral proceedings a chairperson had the competence to set a party a time limit for formulating a new request or for other procedural acts. It was thus not extraordinary that a limited time was given to formulate the objection under Rule 106 EPC. It was also normal for a chairman to strive to bring the proceedings efficiently to a close. These circumstances could thus not give rise to a suspicion of partiality. Moreover, no evidence had been given that would support the allegation that the former chairman had exerted pressure on respondents 4 and 6 to agree to continue without interpreters after 20:00 hrs. The respondents had not been denied the opportunity to prepare the objection under Rule 106 EPC. They had had enough time to prepare, since they already had indicated at lunchtime that they might raise an objection under Rule 106 EPC if they were not allowed to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from document (1). The former chairman had also been prepared to give the respondents the opportunity to present their arguments in support of the objection under Rule 106 EPC. There was no evidence that the former chairman had not been willing to give consideration to the respondents' arguments.

The envisaged time of one hour for discussion of this issue was not unreasonable.

XI. Respondents 1 and 12 requested that the chairman be excluded from the proceedings in the appeal T 1760/11 for reasons of suspected partiality.

XII. The appellant requested that the objection of suspected partiality be rejected.

1. According to the jurisprudence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, the suspicion of partiality must be justified on an objective basis (G 2/08 of 15 June 2009, point 4.2 of the Reasons). It is necessary that a reasonable, objective and informed person considering the circumstances of the case would conclude that the party might have good reason to doubt the impartiality of the member objected to (G 1/05, OJ EPO 2008 271, points 20 to 24 of the Reasons) .

2. The question to be decided here is therefore whether a reasonable, objective and informed person would conclude that respondents 1 and 12 had good reason to suspect the former chairman of being predetermined to reject the objection under Rule 106 EPC without proper consideration of the arguments of the respondents due to the former chairman's refusal to accord more time to the preparation of an objection under Rule 106 EPC and his announced intention to bring oral proceedings to a close at 21:00 hrs. Applying the criteria set out above (point 1), the board cannot identify in the former chairman's conduct of the proceedings any good reason to suspect partiality.

3. At oral proceedings, the time available for a party' s presentations is inevitably limited. In conducting oral proceedings a chairperson has thus the competence to set a party a time limit for its submissions. The fact that the time allocated to a party for its submissions is limited is not in itself a violation of proper procedure, as long as the party is thereby afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case' and, in inter partes proceedings, not placed at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis the adversarial party. This applies equally to the preparation of a new request or to other procedural acts.

4. In the present case, it was shortly before 20:00 hrs when respondents 1 and 12 informed the board that they wished to raise an objection under Rule 106 EPC in view of the refusal of the two requests of respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13, namely, the request for referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the request to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from a different prior art document (see point II above). Since interpretation was no longer available after 20:00 hrs, the former chairman had to consider how to proceed. The former chairman decided to pursue the debate after respondents 4 and 6 had agreed to continue oral proceedings without interpretation.

5. Respondent 6 asserted that the former chairman pressured for a continuation of oral proceedings without interpretation. However, respondent 6 did not substantiate its allegation and there is no evidence supporting the perceived pressure. Respondent 4 did not argue that pressure had been applied. In the board's opinion, the former chairman did not have the means to exert pressure on any of the parties to agree to continue without interpreters. Indeed, a professional representative can be expected to be aware of the implications of waiving its right to interpretation, and to carefully consider its reply to a question of a chairperson in this respect. The board can therefore not identify in the former chairman's endeavours to continue oral proceedings a reason that could reasonably give rise to a suspicion of partiality. The purely subjective perception of pressure by the representative of respondent 6 does not constitute an objective basis on which a suspicion of partiality can be justified.

6. Respondents 1 and 12 relied instead on the facts that the chairman turned down their request for postponement, instructed them to put their request in writing within 15 minutes and indicated that he envisaged bringing oral proceedings to a close at 21:00 hrs.

6.1.1 The board agrees with the appellant that the factual circumstances following the announcement of an objection under Rule 106 EPC cannot be considered in isolation. The objection under Rule 106 EPC is consequential to the board's finding on the preceding requests of respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13, namely, the request for referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the request to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from a different prior art document (see point II above). The events relied upon by respondents 1 and 12 have thus to be evaluated in the context of the discussions on these requests.

6.1.2 The discussion on the request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal started at about 19:05 hrs and took approximately 10 minutes. The chairman then adjourned oral proceedings in order for the board to deliberate on the issues raised and to carefully consider the arguments and the case law invoked by respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13. Oral proceedings were resumed at about 19:40 hrs. The former chairman informed the parties that the request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal was rejected. This announcement was followed by the discussion on the request of respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13 to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from document (1) as the closest prior art. The debate took less than 10 minutes. After deliberation by the board, the former chairman informed the parties at about 19:55 hrs that this request was rejected.

6.1.3 An objective observer would have been aware that the discussion on the request for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the request to be given the opportunity to address inventive step of the subject­ matter of auxiliary request 1 starting from a different prior art document had implications with respect to a possible objection under Rule 106 EPC. Indeed, respondents 1 and 12 indicated before the start of the discussion of these requests that they intended to file an objection under Rule 106 EPC if these requests were not allowed. Moreover, in support of their requests, respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13, in substance, invoked the right to be heard as legal basis. In view of the link between the objection under Rule 106 EPC and the preceding requests, an objective person would not have expected the debate on the objection to require more time than the discussion on the preceding requests, since the main arguments had been presented by the parties and carefully considered by the board in the context of these requests. Since the discussions and deliberations on these requests had taken less than one hour, an objective observer would have thought it reasonable to envisage the end of debate at 21:00 hrs. In this context, an objective observer would not have regarded the allocated time of 15 minutes for preparation of the objection under Rule 106 EPC as extraordinary or inadequate, particularly since about the same time had been accorded for the preparation of the questions for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Moreover, respondents 1 and 12 would have had time to prepare their objection under Rule 106 EPC in advance, namely, during the deliberation s by the board on the preceding requests. Therefore, from an objective point of view, neither the time accorded for the preparation of the objection under Rule 106 EPC nor the envisaged end of debate at 21:00 hrs are valid reasons to suspect the former chairman of being predetermined to reject the objection under Rule 106 EPC without proper consideration of the arguments of the respondents. On the contrary, the procedural arrangements of the former chairman are in keeping with his duty to conduct oral proceedings and duly take into account the interrelated discussions on the requests of respondents 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 13.

7. It is regrettable that, in the heat of the argument, the forceful manner in which the former chairman rejected the request for postponement and directed respondents 1 and 12 to put their objection under Rule 106 EPC in writing might have prompted respondents 1 and 12 to believe that the former chairman was prejudiced. However, the circumstances of events are not sufficient to justify the suspicion of partiality. From the point of view of a reasonably objective and informed person, the behaviour of the former chairman would not have been considered a good reason to suspect his partiality, since the former chairman legitimately disagreed with respondents 1 and 12 about the appropriateness of an adjournment of oral proceedings until the following day, and, being mindful of his responsibility to conduct oral proceedings, endeavoured to avoid any undue delay of the oral proceedings.

8. Since the board could not identify any reason justifying a suspicion of partiality, the request under Article 24 (3) EPC of 15 November 2012 had to be rejected.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The request under Article 24(3) EPC of 15 November 2012 is rejected.

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