30/04/2025
On 1 April 2025, the 2025 edition of the Guidelines for Examination at the European Patent Office (EPO) came into effect. As in previous years, there are some notable changes that have been made, and this year is no different, as it seems the EPO is placing further emphasis on a more digitally orientated future.
For one, it has been confirmed that the now rather archaic/dated practice of permitting the filing of applications by fax is no longer permitted. Part A- Chapter II-2, 1.1.2 “Filing of applications by fax” now reads:
Fax is not a permitted means of filing at the EPO. Applications filed with the EPO by fax are therefore deemed not to have been received (see the decision of the President of the EPO dated 22 April 2024 concerning the abolition of fax as a means of filing patent applications and other documents, OJ EPO 2024, A41, and the corresponding notice from the EPO dated 22 April 2024, OJ EPO 2024, A42). However, applications may still be filed by fax with the competent national authorities of contracting states that permit this.
This is potentially noteworthy, as if all else fails with respect to IT, you no longer have that safety net of faxing your application to the EPO. There is still, of course, the option of hand delivering the application to the EPO or posting it; however, the latter obviously won’t work on a tight deadline.
Further interesting point: the Bundes Patent Gericht also recently abolished the use of faxing in a drive to go paperless.
Another change made to the guidelines, in the same vein as the above, is the introduction of real-time interaction on a document in what is dubbed the “shared area” (outlined in Part C- Chapter VII-2.6). This secure area allows the first member of the exam board, as well as the applicant, to jointly edit an uploaded document, for example, in preparation for/before a telephone consultation on a particular case. It is further posited that the idea is for this procedure to enable real-time interaction between both sides whilst maintaining confidentiality.
It is worth noting, however, that alterations made by the examiner, or for that matter the applicant, are deemed suggestions and still require formally submitting via the EPO’s online filing tools or via e-mail if submitted during the consultation. The examiner could also, as is convention, propose the agreed-upon amendments in a subsequent communication under rule 71(3) EPC communication.
There is also an important caveat which is definitely worth bearing in mind in practice:
The legal and procedural framework for consultations involving the use of the shared area remains the same as that applicable to all personal consultations (see C‑VII, 2.1 to 2.5). In particular, any agreement reached is ultimately subject to the views of the other members of the examining division, and any changes and statements made before and during a consultation must be confirmed in writing to be procedurally effective. Otherwise, they are not legally binding and not effective for meeting a time limit.
In summary, these are interesting changes to the 2025 Guidelines for Examination and ones that are definitely worth being aware of for scenarios one might encounter as a practicing attorney.
This article is for general information only. Its content is not a statement of the law on any subject and does not constitute advice. Please contact Reddie & Grose LLP for advice before taking any action in reliance on it.
