< 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

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

T 1847/22: Procedural considerations in appeal: Re-ordering of requests and the impact on admissibility

Background This case concerned EP 3 085 344 B1, which relates to a wound pad, a self-adhesive member comprising a wound pad. The patent was opposed by two opponents. During …

Read article

Regulation of NGT plants in Europe- Polish Presidency proposes an alternative solution to the Patent ban

In the latest development on the new proposed legislation for the regulation of NGT (gene-edited) plants in the EU, the Polish Presidency have proposed an amendment which removes the proposed …

Read article

T 0295/22: EPO Technical Board of Appeal relies on “bonus effect” case law to find Amgen’s patent to orally administered apremilast lacking in inventive step

This case concerned Amgen’s European patent no. 2962690 for apremilast, a drug sold under the brand name Otezla®, licensed for the treatment of e.g., psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.  The patent …

Read article
Event - 18th March 2025

Salzburg Seminar: Pitfalls in trade mark practice - What can be protected as a trade mark?

The registration of trade marks is a central component of trade mark protection – but which signs can actually be protected? In recent years, the national trade mark offices and …

Event details

Can the Chancellor’s so-called “Europe’s Silicon Valley” really replicate the innovative activity of its namesake?

The Chancellor of the UK, Rachel Reeves, recently unveiled plans to deliver an Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor that promises to boost the UK economy by up to £78 billion by 2035.  …

Read article

UPC’s CFI (Milan) extends deadline to file defence to infringement claim to align with parallel EPO appeal proceedings

Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars S.p.A. & ors. UPC_CFI_472/2024 – Milan Local Division (Perrotti, Zana, Klein, Ashley) – 15 January 2025 The Milan Local Division granted a defendant’s request for an …

Read article