Greece: Patent system moves towards substantive examination

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Greece: Patent system moves towards substantive examination

Sponsored by

patrinos-logo.png
lianhao-qu-lfan1gswv5c-unsplash.jpg

Constantinos Kilimiris of Patrinos & Kilimiris explains how a recent amendment in the provisions of the Greek patent law resolves a long-standing issue which prevented amending applications

The Greek patent system is one that does not provide for substantive examination of patent applications. A national patent application will receive formalities examination and, upon payment of the search fees, a search report on prior art will be provided with the option of obtaining a reasoned opinion from the examiner. The patent will be granted, upon payment of the grant fees, and the search report will be published together with the granted patent.

The validity of such patents can be challenged at court by any third party either in nullity proceedings, or as a defense, in infringement proceedings. In this way, substantive examination on patentability is in practice deferred until a patent is actually litigated and the court will have the chance to rule on patentability on the basis of the search report and opinion accompanying the granted patent.

One of the problems arising with the above patent system was that, upon receipt of the search report, the applicant did not have the possibility to amend his application in order to address the examiner’s objections based on the prior art cited.

This problem has now been resolved with a recent amendment in the provisions of the Greek patent law (1733/87). According to the new provisions, the applicant now has the possibility, within three months from receipt of the search report, to limit his application by submitting amendments in the claims and description addressing the prior art cited.

The examiner will consider the amended claims and draft a final search report that will be published with the granted patent.

While the recent amendments in the patent law still do not provide for substantive examination, they do provide the applicant with the possibility of limiting his application and obtaining a favourable search report, without the need to do so in litigation proceedings.

This seems to take a step towards the introduction of a long-awaited substantive examination patent system in Greece.

 

Constantinos KilimirisPartner, Patrinos & KilimirisE: ckilimiris@patrinoskilimiris.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article