< Back to latest news & events

News

Why the EPO’s top-up search for earlier national rights matters for the UP and UPC

January 2023

Before unitary effect can be registered by the EPO, an applicant must first obtain a European patent via the EPO as it does in the current way. In order to be eligible for registration as a Unitary Patent (“UP”), the European patent must have been granted with the same set of claims in respect of all the 25 participating Member States. This condition must be met irrespective of whether all these states will in fact be covered by the UP. This means that (i) withdrawing the designation of any of the 25 participating Member States rules out obtaining a UP and (ii) having a different set of claims for any of the participating Member States, would also prevent the EPO from registering a UP.

Earlier national rights (i.e. patent documents from the EPC contracting states that would potentially present a “novelty only” patentability problem) are not included in the state of the art for the purposes of the EPO’s examination for patentability (Article 54(3) EPC). This refers to national applications of which the filing dates are prior to the filing or priority date of the European application and which were published as national applications or patents on or after that date. However, under Article 139(2) EPC, after the European patent has been granted, earlier national rights can be invoked as a ground for revocation in national proceedings.

From 1 September 2022, the EPO has been carrying out systematic top-up searches to find such earlier national rights – this is usually reported as part of the EPO’s R71(3) communication (notice of intention to grant). The EPO already carries out a top-up search for European rights at the end of examination.

When it opens, the UPC may revoke a UP, either entirely or partly (Article 65 UPCA), only on the grounds referred to in Articles 138(1) and 139(2) of the EPC. As such, an earlier national right could become prior art against a UP before the UPC.

To avoid these earlier national rights, applicants can file separate sets of claims for countries in which earlier national rights are found (Rule 138 EPC). However, doing so would rule out a UP.

Applicants may therefore need to consider the finding of a national prior right carefully, as it will play into the decision on their validation strategy and whether a UP is the right approach.


This article was prepared by HGF Partners & Patent Attorneys Andy Camenisch and Dr Jennifer Uno

Latest updates

HGF Ranked #1 in the UK for Trade Mark Portfolios in the 2025 Trade Mark Filing Trends Report by Clarivate.

HGF has achieved the #1 ranking for the UK for trade mark portfolios in the newly released 2025 Trade mark Filing Trends report by Clarivate, recognising the firm as a …

Read article

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

IP Ingredients: Summer Case Law Review 2025

As the British summer swings once again between sunburn and showers, it’s a great time to take stock of what the first half of the year has delivered by way …

Read article

Celebrating exam success at HGF!

We are once again delighted to share that our colleagues have achieved success in their recent exams! Their dedication, perseverance, and commitment to professional development have paid off, and we …

Read article

Is the Supreme Court denial in Thatcher’s case a fatal blow against lookalikes?

The dispute between Thatcher’s Cider Company and Aldi Stores Limited has been long running and has sparked legal controversy along the way. On 4th June 2025 the Supreme denied Aldi …

Read article

HGF ranked among Europe’s top patent firms in IP STARS Patent Rankings 2025

HGF has once again made a bold mark in the latest Managing IP Stars 2025 firm rankings, with top-tier recognition across multiple jurisdictions for our patent expertise. This year’s results …

Read article

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has today issued its decision in seminal case G1/24

G1/24, described as one of the most important cases in decades, relates to how claims of patents are to be interpreted by the Boards of Appeal and, by extension, all …

Read article