Ruling on signature validity in patent application assignments

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Ruling on signature validity in patent application assignments

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
contract-3002431.jpg

Edward Farrington of Inspicos suggests what measures can be taken to ensure the requirements of patent application assignments are fulfilled after a ‘text string’ signature was declared invalid

The transfer of a patent application from one party to another before the EPO is governed by Article 72 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). This stipulates that an assignment of a European patent application shall be made in writing and shall require the signature of the parties to the contract.

A decision of the EPO president, published in the Official Journal of the EPO (OJ EPO, 2021, A42) in May 2021, allowed signatures on documents to be:

  • In the form of an enhanced electronic signature;

  • A reproduction of the signature (facsimile signature); or

  • In the form of a string of characters, preceded and followed by a slash (/) sign (a so-called text string signature).

Ruling on signature requirements

A decision by the Legal Board of Appeal – J5/23 – in September 2023 studied the signature requirement when a patent application is transferred under Article 72 of the EPC. The applicant in J5/23 had filed an assignment document in which one party had signed using a text string signature.

The Legal Board of Appeal studied the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and definitions of the term ‘signature’ in the three official languages of the EPO. The board found that the term ‘signature’ in Article 72 of the EPC should be understood as requiring the parties to “put their names on the assignment contract in a distinctive manner”. It also construed the signature requirement as a requirement to provide handwritten signatures, resulting in an unambiguous formal requirement.

The signature on the assignment on file, which was in the form of a text string signature, was therefore deemed not to fulfil the requirements of Article 72 of the EPC, and thus the assignment was invalid.

Additionally, the Board of Appeal found that a decision of the president of the EPO from 2021 was not concerned with assignments, and had no bearing on the case in question.

Key takeaway for patent applicants

It is therefore strongly recommended that when patent applications are to be assigned, copies of the assignment are printed, signed, and scanned, to guarantee that they meet the requirements of Article 72 of the EPC.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article