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 2025

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

The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
Gift this article