Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Osha Attorneys
Attorney search
Search by

The collective expertise of our global team distinguishes OBWB in the field of Intellectual Property Law. We align our best resources to meet each client's specific needs and we treat each matter with the highest degree of attention and care.

12600 Hill Country Blvd.
Suite 275, Austin   TX 78738
P: 512.480.0667
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Osha Liang LLP
1200 Pearl St. Ste. 314
Boulder, CO   80302
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
8/F, Hangzhou Kerry Center
385 Yan An Rd.
Hangzhou, China   310006
P: +86.571.2689.2537
F: +86.571.2689.2700

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Two Houston Center
909 Fannin
Suite 3500, Houston   TX 77010
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
2 Rue de la Paix
75002 Paris, France
P: +33.1.4494.8630
F: +33.1.4494.8631

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
Level 28 Shinagawa Intercity Tower A
2-15-1 Konan Minato-ku
Tokyo, Japan   108-6028
P: 81.3.6717.2877
F: 81.3.6717.2878

Directions
Click here to Get directions.
1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Suite 200
Washington, DC   20006
P: 713.228.8600
F: 713.228.8778

Directions
Click here to Get directions.

Information Disclosure Requirements at the EPO

日本語    简体中文    繁體中文


The requirements to disclose relevant background art or information to the European Patent Office (EPO) are minimal and not comparable to those before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). A large number of applicants for European patent are even exempted from these requirements.  As of July 1, 2021, applicants claiming priority of a Chinese first filing will be exempted too. 


For any European or Euro-PCT application which claims priority of an earlier application, the European patent convention (Rule 141(1) EPC) requires the applicant to provide the EPO with a copy of the results of any prior art search carried out by the patent office in charge of the earlier application.  The required copy of search results must be a copy of the official report issued by the relevant patent office, whatever its form (e.g., search report, listing of cited prior art, relevant part of the examination report).  A non-official document, like a prior art listing prepared by the applicant, is not sufficient.  Copies of the cited prior art do not have to be filed, and a translation of the search results in an official language of the EPO is not required.

The search results have to be filed together with the European patent application, in the case of a Euro-PCT application on entry into the European phase, or without delay after such results have been made available to the applicant.  The obligation exists as long as the application is pending before the EPO.  Where the search results are not provided before the substantive examination starts, the EPO will set a two-month period to file the search results or to provide a statement that no search results are available to the applicant.

According to Rule 141(2) EPC, applicants are exempted from filing said search results if they are claiming priority of either an earlier application for which the EPO carried out the search, or a first filing made in the following countries: Austria, Denmark, Japan, South Korea (ROK), Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the United States of America.

As of July 1, 2021, this list will be extended to include: China (PRC) and Sweden.

This exemption results from agreements with the national patent offices of the foregoing countries, allowing the EPO to access the search results through electronic document exchange systems.

Information Disclosure Requirements were introduced at the EPO around ten years ago to allow the EPO to benefit from the prior art search carried out by another patent office on an invention to which a European patent application under examination relates.  These requirements are limited to the official results of the prior art search.  By contrast with the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) procedure at the USPTO, the requirements at the EPO do not derive from the principle of duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the office.  Accordingly, they do not extend to all the relevant prior art known by the applicants or their attorneys.  Further, an increasing number of applicants have been exempted from these requirements since their introduction.  It thus appears that the EPO is aware of the additional work such requirements may imply and pays attention not to place an excessive burden on the applicants.