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 0072/16 20-02-2020
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0072/16 20-02-2020

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T007216.20200220
Date of decision
20 February 2020
Case number
T 0072/16
Petition for review of
-
Application number
09749542.8
IPC class
B29C53/56
F16L59/02
F16L59/14
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 552.73 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Pipe section and method for its production

Applicant name
Rockwool International A/S
Opponent name
SAINT-GOBAIN ISOVER
Board
3.2.05
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention 054(2) (2007)
Keywords

Public availability of prior use proven (no)

Public prior use - (at least) implicit obligation to maintain secrecy (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
-
Citing decisions
-

I. The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division on the amended form in which European patent No. 2 293 920 ("the patent") can be maintained.

The opposition division admitted the following evidence in support of an alleged prior use:

D11: Demonstration video of Aspen Aerogels Inc.;

D11a: Signed declaration by Mr Mark Krajewski;

dated 7 October 2013

D12: Signed declaration by Mr Mark Krajewski;

dated 30 October 2014

D13: Product Assembly Specification of Aspen

dated 22 November 2004

D14: Bill of Lading from Shipco Transport

dated 27 January 2005.

The opposition division also heard a witness (Mr Mark Krajewski). The minutes of the taking of evidence by hearing the witness will be referred to as document "MMK" in what follows.

II. The oral proceedings before the board were held on 20 February 2020.

III. The appellant (opponent) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked.

The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed (main request), or that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the sets of claims filed as first and second auxiliary requests in response to the statement of grounds of appeal by letter of 13 July 2016.

IV. In the decision under appeal the opposition division evaluated the evidence related to the alleged public prior use as follows:

"[2.2.1] Mr. Krajewski's testimony was free of contradictions. He acknowledged gaps in his memory, which is natural after more than 10 years. He was nevertheless able to recite the events around the manufacture of the pipe section from his own immediate experience. He was part of the team manufacturing the 48 pipe sections later shipped to Technip, France according to D14, and he was the videographer of D11. The opposition division therefore considered his testimony to be credible.

[2.2.2] On the basis of the evidence on file and the testimony of the witness, the opposition division arrived at the conclusion that Aspen Aerogels, Inc. shipped 48 pipe sections manufactured as shown in D11 to Technip, France on 27.01.2005 and that Technip France received and used them without being bound by confidentiality. Although Mr. Krajewski did not see the pipe sections arriving in France he convincingly explained that the 48 pieces mentioned in D14 were the very first batch in a large number of shipments of pipe sections to follow. As no complaints were received and the first shipment was the trigger for many more, the opposition division is convinced that Technip, France received the first batch and approved of it. Mr. Krajewski also explained that these 48 parts were produced from 4 mats of aerogel fibres. These mats were cut at a length of about 1.80 m or 1.90 m from a roll of aerogel fibre with a width of 1.50 m. The first mat had a Tyvek cover pre-laminated on one side and was then wound transversally - with the Tyvek cover on the inside - around a mandrel that was the size of the flow line of the pipe to be insulated. The other mats followed one after the other so that they did not overlap, the space between them not exceeding 5 mm, with adhesive in between the different layers, until the parts reached the desired thickness. The outer mat was again pre-laminated with Tyvek on the outside. The untrimmed part of ca. 1.80 m/1.90 m was then cut to 1.75 m and released from the mandrel with a cut allowing a shiplap joint that was thermally efficient. The cut edges were then covered in Tyvek.

[2.2.3] Mr. Krajewski stated that he was not aware of any confidentiality obligation on the side of Technip, France. He pointed out that Aspen Aerogel, Inc. was bound by confidentiality vis-a-vis Technip, when his team visited the Technip off-shore engineering group. It was aimed at the non-disclosure of new technologies the Aspen team would see or learn about while visiting Technip on its off-shore site, but it was not reciprocal. Mr. Krajewski's recollection of this particular NDA clearly shows that it is usual in the business for personnel involved in production to have to sign or at least be made aware of any confidentiality obligation. As Mr. Krajewski was not aware of such an express obligation of confidentiality, the opposition division is convinced that such an express obligation did not exist. Mr. Krajewski also repeatedly stated that it was Aspen Aerogel, Inc.'s aim to sell their aerogel mats and that it was important for Aspen Aerogel, Inc. to promote their capability of adding value to deep water pipe projects. Therefore, the opposition division does not see any indication for an implicit confidentiality agreement.

[2.2.4] The opposition division is further convinced that Technip, France had the possibility and means to observe and analyse the structure and material of the pipe sections in detail and deduce from the product its method of manufacture. From the structure of the parts the skilled person could infer that the aerogel mats had been rolled on a mandrel. The orientation of the transversal edges of the aerogel mat and the empty internal space of the pipe section meant that the mats had been spirally wound around a mandrel. Mr. Krajewski testified that the pipe sections were completely covered in Tyvek. However, he also explained that the pipe sections are cut if a shorter piece is needed for the insulation of a piece of pipe. He also explained that a person could feel with its fingers that the pipe section, after it was trimmed (or cut to insulate a short piece of pipe), was made of different layers with adhesive in between."

V. The parties' submissions in respect of the question of the public availability of the alleged prior use were as follows:

(a) Respondent

The alleged public prior use was not adequately proven.

The alleged prior use boils down to the appellant's allegation that Aspen Aerogels sold a product to Technip France, the latter not being bound by any duty of confidentiality, such that that sale could be considered a disclosure to the public. However, it is plain from the evidence and the witness testimony that Technip was not a mere customer. The evidence shows that Aspen and Technip were engaged as partners with each other in a product development project, which was clearly considered by the parties as commercially sensitive and confidential. That being the case, neither of the parties was a member of the public.

The evidence relating to the alleged public prior use came in two tranches. First, video D11 and the supporting declaration D11a were filed. When the opposition division indicated that it was not convinced, documents D12, D13 and D14 were filed. They were then further supplemented by the witness testimony.

Declaration D11a explains that the video D11 was produced prior to 31 December 2004 and that thousands of elements were sold to a European customer (i.e. Technip) prior to the priority date. Video D11 is the earliest piece of evidence for anyone being in possession of the product.

On page 9 of document MMK it is stated that the contact between Aspen and Technip was established in summer or fall 2004 by a gentleman running a Technip facility in Angola.

It is clear from the first page of D13 that this document is the fruit of a collaborative effort of Aspen and Technip in developing a product. It establishes that Technip was not a simple customer or a third party, but a partner in a development programme. It can be seen that the first draft was written in October 2004, i.e. before the date of the video. Both partners made comments and suggestions to develop the product. The drafting of the document was not finished before July 2005. On the very last page of document D13 there are various approval signatures. All are dated late July 2005. On the first page of D13 (top left hand corner) there is a box "Technip Vendor Document Review" and the name Cédric Descusse of Technip with the date 26 August 2005. It appears that the document was finally approved at the end of August 2005 by Technip.

It is not actually known which information has flown in which direction between the two partners in the period between summer 2004 and August 2005, i.e. who contributed what.

On page 2 of document D13, there is a clear statement:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

Thus, the content of the document was not merely confidential vis-à-vis the public, but even vis-à-vis the employees of the partners. This suggests a high level of commercial sensitivity. It does not support the idea that any party agreed to any part of the document being made available to the public.

It should also be noted that document D13 is the final version and that the confidentiality statement is still there. This expresses an ongoing requirement of confidentiality.

In declaration D12 the witness also acknowledges that document D13 was confidential.

The process demonstrated in video D11 is rudimentary at best. It does not indicate a mature technology. That is entirely consistent with the timescale of the development programme.

On page 40 of document MMK the witness states that the video and document D13 were developed simultaneously, and that the video served as an explanatory complement to the specifications expressed in the document. In view of the confidentiality requirements in document D13 and the fact that document D13 and video D11 were intended to be distributed together, the same obligation of confidentiality applies to both.

Document D14 bears the date of 27 January 2005, i.e. a moment right in the middle of the development programme, seven months prior to the final sign-off of the specifications. It relates to a shipment of Aerogel panels to Technip France. So at the time of the shipment the development programme was not yet completed. It is clear from page 1 of document D13 that there were several revisions after the date of that shipment. Thus, the product was not a commercial product that Technip had just bought from Aspen. Rather, it was a development product, a prototype supplied in the course of an ongoing collaboration between these two parties. This is made plain by the witness himself on pages 14 and 15 of document MMK; the parts were manufactured by his own group, not by subcontractors. The parts are referred to as "prototype machine" and said to have been produced "just to see that is was a viable option". Clearly, the delivery was not the supply of a commercial product for the end use.

According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, this type of programme is regarded to be implicitly confidential by nature. But the witness even goes beyond that to say that there were contractual arrangements in place, including a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). When asked about the role of confidentiality, the witness declared (see page 18 of document MMK):

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

The NDA was not made available. It is not surprising that the witness, an engineer, not an IP specialist, was not aware of all the confidentiality requirements binding the other party, as also stated in document D12. This is also consistent with his declarations on his role in the project (see page 11 of document MMK). Being an engineer, the witness would not have cared about the obligations for the other party to the agreement. Moreover, his statement on page 19 of document MKK (that he did not know whether there were NDAs in place with all the subcontractors) is not supported by the confidentiality statement in document D13. The witness's recollection is not persuasive in this respect when compared to the evidence on file.

If Technip had been a mere customer, the existence of an NDA is unaccounted for. People buying commercial products off the shelve do not usually sign an NDA. Rather, the NDA suggests a degree of commercial sensitivity and confidentiality.

In fact, there is no evidence that the product existed at all outside the development programme.

All the elements on file point to at least an implied understanding of confidentiality between Aspen and Technip as partners in a project, and the express confidentiality provisions in document D13 would be entirely frustrated if this were not true. As partners in a project, neither Aspen nor Technip can fairly be regarded as members of the public. Information flow

between two partners in a project does not make the contents of the exchange available to the public. The existence of the NDA suggests a significant likelihood that the requirement of confidentiality would not be implied but express. The omission of the NDA from the proceedings leaves a big doubt in that regard. The suggestion that the NDA was asymmetric would seem very strange. There is no evidence for it except the inability of the witness to recall. That is not enough to turn the balance of probability in favour of the appellant.

There is no evidence whatsoever in respect of products delivered by Aspen to other customers after the expiration of the NDA. If there were such sales, it is not known what exactly was sold or disclosed in this context. The witness testimony in this respect is entirely uncorroborated.

If the appellant was capable of providing bills of lading for the prototypes, they should have been able to provide such documents also for the alleged subsequent sales of 18000 parts, establishing what was sent to whom and when. There is no such evidence at all covering the period following the sign-off date of document D13.

Beyond that, Technip was a partner to the development programme and, as such, not a member of the public. Even then, supplying them could not amount to a disclosure to the public, no matter how much was supplied: Technip was internal to the project.

(b) Appellant

It can be assumed that the prior use started as a common project in 2004 and that 48 pipe elements were delivered as some sort of prototype to check whether a certain number could be given in a given amount of time. However, there were thousands of elements delivered before the priority date of the patent ("18000 plus": see page 14 of document MMK). These cannot be prototypes. They were put to service on oil rigs to insulate deep-water oil pipes and could be inspected by many people belonging to the public (safety controls etc.). So the development phase was followed by commercial deliveries of the product that were not covered by confidentiality agreements.

The NDA agreement acknowledged by the witness on page 18 of document MMK was binding on Aspen and not on Technip.

As explained on page 40 of document MMK, the video D11 is a clear demonstration of how the product was manufactured. There was a lapse of three years between the final version of the specifications and the priority date of the patent. The witness also stated that there were other customers. There is no good reason why Aspen would not have shown the video to them, considering that they were not bound by a confidentiality agreement any longer.

The appellant was not able to provide more information on Aspen's sales because Aspen is a third party and the appellant had not full access to their archives. The appellant shared all the information they were able to obtain.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. In the present proceedings, Article 12(2) of the revised version of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020, OJ EPO 2019, A63), which entered into force on 1 January 2020 (Article 24 RPBA 2020), applies in accordance with 25(1) RPBA 2020. According to Article 12(2) RPBA 2020 it is the primary object of the appeal proceedings to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner. In the decision under appeal the opposition division found that the alleged public prior use had been sufficiently proven and that the patent could be maintained on the basis of the then second auxiliary request. In particular, the alleged prior use has been seen as the only suitable closest prior art regarding the assessment of inventive step. Since apart from objections based on the alleged prior uses there were no further objections against inventive step with regard to the main request and the auxiliary requests underlying the appeal proceedings, the decisive issue in the present case is whether any of the alleged public prior uses has been sufficiently proven.

3. In their appeal the appellant/opponent agreed to the opposition division's finding that the prior use formed the closest prior art. However, they asserted that claims 1 and 10 of auxiliary request 2 on the basis of which the patent was maintained did not involve an inventive step. Even though the appellant did not raise any objection in this respect, according to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal the principle of prohibition of reformatio in peius does not apply separately to each point decided. Rather, the whole request is before the board of appeal and within its jurisdiction, and the board is empowered to reopen and to decide upon matters which have been an issue before the opposition division, like the alleged prior use in the present appeal case (cf. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019, V.A.3.1.1).

4. In accordance with the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019, I.C.3.2.4 a)), in order to decide whether an alleged prior use is comprised in the state of the art it is necessary to establish the date on which the alleged prior use occurred, exactly what was used and the circumstances relating to the use by which it was made available to the public. The opposition division arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence on file and the testimony of the witness, Mr. Krajewski, Aspen Aerogels, Inc. (hereinafter: Aspen) shipped 48 pipe sections manufactured as shown in the video D11 to Technip France (hereinafter: Technip) on 27 January 2005 and that Technip received and used them without being bound by confidentiality. According to the testimony, Aspen was bound by confidentiality, but it was not reciprocal. The opposition division was convinced that neither an express confidentiality agreement nor an implicit obligation of confidentiality existed.

5. The board does not question the opposition division's conclusion insofar as Aspen shipped 48 pipe sections manufactured as shown in the video D11 to Technip on 27 January 2005 and that Technip received and used them. This statement appears also not to be contested by the respondent/proprietor. However, the board considers that, during the oral proceedings before it, the respondent has convincingly demonstrated on the basis of documents D12, D13, D14 and the testimony of Mr. Krajewski, that said sale and shipment of 48 panels on 27 January 2005 was carried out under an explicit non-disclosure-agreement binding both Aspen and Technip or that there was at least an implicit confidentiality agreement, and that this has not been disproved by the appellant.

6. As set out in the board's communication of 29 October 2019 sent as annex to the summons to oral proceedings the board is still of the opinion that there is no reason to apply a standard of proof stricter than that of "balance of probabilities". According to the established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, the stricter standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" should be applied when all the evidence in support of the alleged prior public use lies within the power and knowledge of the opponent, while the patent proprietor has barely any or no access to it at all (see "Case Law of the Boards of Appeals of the European Patent Office", 9th edition, 2019, III.G.4.3.2 b)). However, neither has it been established in the present case that all the evidence for the alleged prior use lies within the power and knowledge of the appellant, nor is there any evidence before the board that Aspen is a company belonging to a group the opponent is part of or any indication of similar circumstances that would justify that Aspen be assimilated to the appellant.

7. Regarding the burden of proof in case of an alleged prior use by the sale and delivery of products, the opponent has to present facts and proof that these products, as in the case at issue the 48 pipe sections, have been sold and handed over to the buyer and thus have been made available to the public. It is the board's view, and in accordance with principles well-established in the case law of the majority of the Contracting States, that a single sale is sufficient to render the article sold available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC, provided the buyer is not bound by an obligation to maintain secrecy. According to the contested decision of the opposition division Aspen Aerogels sold a product (48 pipe sections) to Technip France, the latter not being bound by any duty of confidentiality, such that that the sale could be considered a disclosure to the public. However, in the case at issue, as already mentioned (see point 5. above) and explained in more detail below, the board has come to the conclusion that the respondent has convincingly demonstrated during the oral proceedings before the board, that on the basis of documents D12, D13, D14 and the witness testimony Technip was not a mere customer. Rather, Aspen and Technip were engaged as partners in a product development project and their collaboration was governed by an at least implicit confidentiality agreement. In the board's view the appellant has failed to demonstrate that no confidentiality agreement existed (cf. also T 2037/18 of 16 October 2019, point 12 of the reasons).

8. The board concurs with the respondent's submission during the oral proceedings that it is comprehensible and credible from D13, D14 and the testimony of Mr. Krajewski that as far as the shipment of the 48 pre-formed panels on 27 January 2005 from Aspen to Technip is concerned, this was not a sale and delivery of a commercially available end product which has thus become publicly available. Rather, the evidence shows that this shipment of 48 panels was part of a product development project ("Dalia Project") between Aspen and Technip as partners. Hence, in this regard Technip cannot be regarded as mere customer and neither of the partners as a member of the public.

9. As stated on page 9 of document MMK and on the first page of D13, which is a document displaying the collaborative effort of Aspen and Technip in developing the panels, the contact between Aspen and Technip was established in summer or fall 2004. It can be derived from D13 that the first draft was written in October 2004. Both partners made comments and suggestions to develop the product. The drafting of the document was not finished before July 2005. On the very last page of document D13 there are various approval signatures all dated late July 2005. It appears that the document was finally approved at the end of August 2005 by Technip.

10. Document D14 relates to the shipment of 48 pre-formed Aerogel panels to Technip and bears the date of 27 January 2005, i.e. a point in time right in the middle of the development programme, seven months prior to the final sign-off of the specifications. So at the time of the shipment of the 48 panels in January 2005 the development programme was not yet completed and it is clear from the first page of document D13 that there were several revisions after the date of that shipment.

11. Thus, the product was not a commercial product that Technip had just bought from Aspen as a customer or third party. Rather, it was a development product, a prototype supplied in the course of an ongoing collaboration programme between these two partners. This is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Krajewski, as can be seen on pages 14, 15 and 17 of document MMK (all underlines added by the board). Asked about the bill of lading D14, the witness explained that "those parts we manufactured for the programme ... and delivered to Technip France" (page 14). He continued, that "we had built the prototype machine" .... and these panels were produced "just to see that is was a viable option" (page 15). Furthermore, asked how the business relationship with Technip continued the witness said "... after this first shipment, we won the project and delivered the project in its entirety ...", and in answering another question: "and then from that point on started manufacturing in an industrial scale and delivering parts" (page 17). All this makes it clear, that the delivery of the 48 panels as documented in D14 was not the supply of a commercial product for the end use, but rather part of the ongoing development project.

12. According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, such a relationship between two companies which contracted to develop and deliver prototypes and products for test purposes cannot be treated as equivalent to that between a dealer and a customer and in these cases an obligation to maintain secrecy applied (T 1847/12, "Case Law of the Boards of Appeals of the European Patent Office", 9th edition, 2019, I.C.3.4.7 and 3.4.4). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, which are contested by neither party, the board does not have any doubts that in accordance with the normal practice in those cases there has been at least an implicit duty of confidentiality on both companies involved. There being at least an implicit understanding of confidentiality between Aspen and Technip as partners in a project, both companies cannot fairly be regarded as members of the public.

13. Moreover, there appears to be not so much an implicit but rather an express confidentiality agreement governing the co-operation between Aspen and Technip to develop pipe sections or pre-formed panels. Document D13, second page, contains the clear statement:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

Thus, the content of the document was not merely confidential vis-à-vis the public, but even vis-à-vis the employees of the partners. Even if Technip was to be regarded as third party it would have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This clause does not support the appellant's contention that any party agreed to any part of the document being made available to the public. It is also noted that document D13 is the final version still containing the confidentiality statement, which expresses an ongoing requirement of confidentiality. In declaration D12 (point 2.) the witness also acknowledges that document D13 was confidential.

14. The board considers that these facts and the supporting evidence which the respondent referred to in his submissions during the oral proceedings sufficiently prove that, in the present case, the buyer was bound by an obligation to maintain secrecy. Thus, the board is of the opinion that the burden of proof has shifted to the appellant to establish that there was no confidentiality agreement. The appellant has however not presented any arguments or evidence which might objectively cast doubt on the existence of a confidentiality agreement. As far as the appellant refers to the testimony on page 18 of document MMK this statement of the witness is not suitable to disprove the existence of a confidentiality agreement in view of the given facts and documentary evidence on file. The witness declared (see page 18 of document MMK):

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

15. First of all, the board does not doubt the witness's credibility or whether the testimony corresponds to the witness's true recollection. However, the probative value of the statements concerning the existence of a NDA (pages 18 and 19 of MKK) is not persuasive in this respect when compared to the evidence on file, in particular with regard to the confidentiality clause in D13, page 2. Equally, the suggestion that the NDA was asymmetric, i.e. only binding on Aspen but not on Technip appears not to be probable and from experience rather contrary to the situation in comparable co-operation projects, and furthermore not supported by any further evidence. It is not surprising that the witness, an engineer, not an IP specialist, was not aware of all the confidentiality requirements binding the other party, as also stated in document D12. This is also consistent with his declarations on his role in the project (see page 11 of document MMK). Furthermore, the appellant did not provide any evidence in support of its allegation that the panels delivered according to D14 were put to service on oil rigs to insulate deep-water oil pipes and could be inspected by many people belonging to the public. Since there is no counter-evidence on file that such confidentiality agreement was actually not in place in the case at issue the appellant has not discharged its burden of proof in this respect.

16. Regarding the video D11 the board in the annex to the summons of 29 October 2019 (point 4.4.2) already pointed out that the presentation of video D11 to potential subcontractors and their workers as such did not constitute state of the art under Article 54(2) EPC, because subcontractors may be considered to be bound by an implicit non-disclosure agreement and, therefore, do not qualify as members of the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC. This assessment is corroborated by the witness. As can be seen on page 40 of document MMK the witness stated that the video D11 and document D13 were developed simultaneously, and that the video served as an explanatory complement to the specifications expressed in document D13. In view of the confidentiality requirements in document D13 and the fact that document D13 and video D11 were intended to be distributed together, the same obligation of confidentiality applies to both. The appellant has not provided any evidence that the video D11 has been presented to persons not being bound by an confidentiality agreement. The appellant's mere allegation that there is no good reason why Aspen would not have shown the video to other customers is certainly not appropriate to be acknowledged as such evidence.

17. During the oral proceedings before the board the appellant for the first time argued that there were thousands of pipe sections delivered before the priority date of the patent and put to service on oil rigs to insulate deep-water oil pipes, which could be inspected by many people belonging to the public not covered by confidentiality agreements. This allegation is based on the statement of the witness (see page 14 of document MMK) that "we manufactured 18 000 plus" of the parts. In this respect the board first of all points out that a party who wishes to adduce witness evidence should indicate what factual details it wishes to prove by this means. The function of a witness is to corroborate what has been alleged and not to fill in the gaps in facts. Additional clarifications provided by a witness to close a potential gap in the documentary evidence on file cannot be considered per se new facts.

18. Apart from this fundamental deficiency in the appellant's submission there is no evidence whatsoever in respect of products delivered by Aspen to Technip or other customers after the expiration of the non-disclosure agreement. Considering that the appellant was capable of providing bills of lading for the prototypes, they should have been able to provide such documents also for the subsequent sales of 18000 parts, establishing what was sent to whom and when. There is however no such evidence at all covering the period following the sign-off date of document D13.

19. As far as the appellant explained during the oral proceedings before the board that they were not able to provide more information on Aspen's sales because Aspen is a third party and the appellant had not full access to their archives, the board cannot accept this as a valid argument or a justified excuse for not providing facts and evidence supporting their appeal. The factual inability of an appellant for whatever reasons to submit appropriate and sufficient facts, arguments and evidence for the substantiation of the appeal lies exclusively in the sphere of influence and responsibility of the appellant and cannot be taken into account to the detriment of the respondent.

20. The board therefore concludes that none of the alleged public prior uses has been proven by the appellant, so that none of them forms part of the prior art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC. The substance of the objections of lack of inventive step based on the prior use does not therefore need to be addressed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

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