Categories
Uncategorized

Patents in real life: scenarios and checklists for inventors & entrepreneurs in Romania (and the EU)

This article turns abstract patent law into concrete scenarios for software, hardware and chemistry-style inventions, showing what examiners actually look for. It outlines filing routes via OSIM, the EPO and the unitary patent, highlights common mistakes like premature disclosure and offers checklists you can use before drafting claims or signing with investors.

You’ve built something that works. Now what? This guide walks you through real-world patent decisions using practical scenarios—hardware, software/AI, medical/chemistry—plus timelines, routes (OSIM national vs. European vs. Unitary Patent), disclosure traps, and drafting fundamentals. Every rule I lean on is cited so you can verify it yourself.

The 10-minute orientation (so you know the playing field)

  • In Europe, patentability hangs on four pillars: technical character, novelty (new vs. the state of the art), inventive step (non-obvious), and industrial applicability. This is codified in the European Patent Convention (EPC) Art. 52 (what’s patentable), Art. 54 (novelty), Art. 56 (inventive step), Art. 83 (sufficiency/enabling disclosure), and Art. 84 (claims must be clear and supported). (epo.org)
  • Romania protects inventions by national patent via OSIM (State Office for Inventions and Trademarks) under Law 64/1991 (republished). European patents (EP) validated in Romania are also recognized. (Ampeid)
  • Since 1 September 2024, Romania participates in the Unitary Patent (UP/UPC) system. European patents opting for unitary effect from that date can cover Romania in one go; Romania became the 18th participating EU country. (epo.org)
  • A 12-month priority window (Paris Convention) lets you file first in one country, then expand to others (or the PCT route) without losing your date. For patents/utility models, the priority period is 12 months from the first filing. (OMPI)

Scenario 1 — “We built a better espresso machine.” (Hardware/IoT)

The business reality. You have a physical product with a new brew chamber geometry and a smart valve that cuts energy use by 20%. You’re about to pitch at a trade show next month.

What has to be true legally?

  1. Novelty: nothing identical has been made public anywhere, in any language, by any means, before your filing date (EPC Art. 54 defines “state of the art” very broadly). A single enabling disclosure kills novelty. (epo.org)
  2. Inventive step: your differences wouldn’t have been obvious to a skilled engineer at the time (Art. 56). In Europe, examiners use a structured problem–solution approach to determine obviousness. (epo.org)
  3. Sufficiency: the application must teach at least one way to carry out the invention across the full scope (Art. 83 / Guidelines F-III). Include construction details, tolerances, control logic, and test data that let a skilled person reproduce the efficiency effect without undue burden. (epo.org)
  4. Clarity & support: claims must be clear, concise, and supported by your description (Art. 84). Vague “optimized module” language invites clarity objections. (epo.org)

Immediate decisions.

  • File before the show. Europe does not have a US-style general 12-month grace period. The EPC only excuses certain limited disclosures (e.g., evident abuse or certain international exhibitions) within 6 months—a narrow exception you shouldn’t rely on (Art. 55; EPO grace-period study). (epo.org)
  • Choose a filing route: (a) a Romanian national patent at OSIM (fastest to file, Romanian-only right), (b) a European patent via EPO (central search/exam; later validate or request unitary effect), or (c) a PCT international application to keep options open while you refine. OSIM is the receiving office for PCT and offers e-filing. (OSIM)

A workable path.

  1. Priority filing now (Romanian or EP) with robust drawings (sections of the brew chamber; valve geometry), then
  2. Within 12 months, file PCT or EP building on the first filing (keeps your early date). Paris Convention Art. 4 is the basis for the 12-month clock. (OMPI)
  3. If you go the EP route and get grant after 1 Sept 2024, consider unitary effect to cover the UP countries (now includes Romania). If you need protection beyond UP states, you can still validate “classically” in non-UP EPC states. (epo.org)

Practical drafting tips.

  • Claim the device and the method of operation/control, plus use claims where appropriate.
  • Include measurable parameters (e.g., pressure/flow transients across the valve) and ranges; if you disclose only one point (e.g., 16.2 cone), you risk selection novelty attacks later. The EPO Guidelines explain how “selection inventions” are assessed against generic prior art. (epo.org)
  • Back up your “20% energy reduction” with reproducible test info; if the promised effect isn’t consistently achievable, you may face sufficiency objections (F-III, 12). (epo.org)

Scenario 2 — “It’s software/AI. Can we patent that?” (CII: computer-implemented inventions)

The business reality. Your startup optimizes delivery routes using an AI that prunes the search space, cutting CPU and fleet miles. You’ve heard “software isn’t patentable in Europe.”

The law and the line that matters.

  • Programs “as such” are excluded, but software can be patented if it produces a further technical effect—beyond the ordinary running of code on a computer. That is the EPO’s settled test (Guidelines G-II 3.6 and 3.6.1). Examples with technical effect: controlling anti-lock brakes, X-ray emission determination, video compression, image restoration, encryption, and improvements of the computer’s internal functioning. (epo.org)
  • Data structures and formats can contribute to technical character when they have an intended technical use that causes a technical effect (e.g., cache-coherent memory layout improving access), per G-II 3.6.3 (and decision G 1/19). (epo.org)

How to frame it.

  • Anchor claims in technical considerations: e.g., a scheduling algorithm constrained by vehicle battery thermal limits and sensor latency, not just “save money.”
  • If your improvement reduces bus contention, cache misses, or I/O wait, say so. When the technical effect is tied to the computer’s internal functioning or a controlled process, it counts in the inventive-step analysis. (epo.org)
  • Separate non-technical business aims (pricing, marketing) from technical features in the claim; under the COMVIK approach, only technical features can support inventive step.

Evidence and enablement.

  • Provide benchmarks (e.g., reductions in CPU cycles on a defined architecture; end-to-end latency reductions measured under specific load). This supports both sufficiency (Art. 83) and inventive step arguments grounded in a technical effect. (epo.org)

Scenario 3 — “We reformulated a drug and fixed stability.” (Chemistry/biotech/med-device)

The business reality. Your formulation reduces degradation at 40 C by 60% vs. the known salt form. You have early data and a stability model.

What examiners will look for.

  • Sufficiency across claim scope: do you enable the whole range (e.g., pH 4.8–6.2 with two excipient families), not just the exact batch you tested? The EPO Guidelines emphasize that the claimed effect must be achievable and reproducible over the whole scope; otherwise, you’ll face Art. 83 objections. (epo.org)
  • Selection inventions: if the prior art discloses a broader family/range, you must show your selected sub-range/embodiment is novel (not clearly and unambiguously disclosed) and ideally has a purposive technical effect (e.g., a surprising stability plateau). See G-VI, 7 on selection inventions. (epo.org)
  • For med-devices, claims often hinge on geometry/materials that deliver a measurable effect (reduced shear, better osseointegration). Tie the mechanism to the measurement (e.g., ISO test, ASTM method).

Data strategy.

  • Include comparative data vs. the closest art where possible. If data arrives later, you can sometimes rely on it for inventive step only if the effect is credibly encompassed by the original technical teaching—a nuance reflected in recent 2025 Guideline updates and case law commentary. (Use with caution and ensure the effect was at least implicit in the original disclosure.) (Solve Intelligence)

Public disclosure: the fastest way to lose Europe (and how to avoid it)

  • In Europe, any public disclosure before filing—papers, posters, investor decks without NDA, YouTube demos—counts against novelty (Art. 54). There is no general 12-month grace period like in the US. (epo.org)
  • The EPC only spares certain non-prejudicial disclosures (e.g., evident abuse or certain recognized exhibitions) within six months—a narrow, risky harbour (Art. 55; EPO’s grace-period study). The safe rule: file before you speak. (epo.org)

The three main routes to protection (with Romania-specific notes)

  1. OSIM national patent (Romania)
    • Granted under Law 64/1991; right is territorial (Romania only). OSIM provides online filing and is the PCT receiving office. (Ampeid)
  2. European patent (EPO)
    • One application, central search/examination; upon grant, you either validate country-by-country or request unitary effect to cover UP states. The patentability tests (Arts. 52/54/56/83/84 EPC) and EPO Guidelines govern how your application is assessed. (epo.org)
  3. Unitary Patent (UP) + Unified Patent Court (UPC)
    • From 1 Sept 2024, Romania is part of the UP/UPC system: unitary effect now automatically includes Romania for EPs opting in after grant. Consider UP if you want broad EU coverage with centralized enforcement/defence; use classic validation for non-UP EPC states. (epo.org)

Cost lever: the EPO introduced a 30% fee reduction for micro-entities (from 1 April 2024) on the main fees of the grant procedure—subject to eligibility (micro-entity status and “<5 filings in 5 years” cap). See the EPO’s official pages and Guidelines A-X 9.4. (epo.org)

Timeline & expansion: Paris Convention + PCT (what to do month-by-month)

  • Day 0: File a priority application (RO national or EP). This fixes your priority date. (OMPI)
  • Months 1–11: Develop data, iterate prototypes, refine claims. Keep everything confidential externally.
  • By Month 12: File PCT (international) or direct EP claiming the priority. The 12-month period is set by Paris Convention Art. 4. (OMPI)
  • PCT route (if chosen): At 30/31 months, enter national/regional phases (e.g., EP, RO). Romania’s national-phase specifics and forms are published by WIPO and OSIM (translation rules, forms, etc.). (PCT Legal)
  • After EP grant: Within a short window, request Unitary Patent protection if that fits your strategy (now includes Romania), and validate in any non-UP EPC states you need. (epo.org)

Romanian “utility model”: a faster, narrower tool you might want

If your innovation is mechanical and the step over the art is modest, a utility model can be a quick-to-obtain right—purely national (Romania), max 10 years (6 + 2 + 2). It protects technical inventions that are new, exceed mere professional skill, and are industrially applicable, but processes/methods are excluded. Check OSIM’s law, FAQs, and implementing regulation. (OSIM)

Typical uses: incremental add-ons, fixtures, housings, mechanical linkages—especially when speed to an enforceable right in Romania matters (e.g., deterring copycats at a domestic trade fair).

Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) vs. patentability (don’t confuse them)

  • Patentability = can you obtain a patent? (Novelty/Inventive Step/Enablement vs. the past.)
  • FTO = can you make/sell without infringing someone else’s active rights? (Looks at live patents and claim scope.) Different analysis, databases, and risk budgets. Do not conflate the two; securing a patent does not guarantee FTO.

Drafting fundamentals (and the “added-matter” trap that catches many)

  • Claims must be clear and supported (Art. 84). Ground your abstractions in technical features and measurable parameters. (epo.org)
  • Enable the invention (Art. 83): provide at least one way to work it; if you promise an effect, show how to achieve it across the scope. (epo.org)
  • Do not add matter post-filing (Art. 123(2)): you cannot later insert subject-matter not clearly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. Careless “intermediate generalisations” (lifting one narrow feature from a detailed embodiment and presenting it broadly) can invalidate amendments. See the EPO’s case-law guidance on Art. 123(2). (epo.org)

Practical drafting checklist before Day 0:

  • Drawings that teach (sections, exploded views, flow charts).
  • A problem statement and technical effect that your features actually deliver (with data where feasible).
  • Multiple fall-back positions (ranges, alternative materials/architectures) in the original filing to preserve amendment room without “adding matter.”
  • For software/AI, articulate the further technical effect (e.g., reduced cache misses on architecture X; control of a technical process) and reflect it in claim features; cross-reference Guidelines G-II 3.6/3.6.1/3.6.3. (epo.org)

Cost levers you shouldn’t overlook

  • EPO micro-entity reduction (30%) on main fees (filing, search, examination, designation, grant, and application-stage renewals) if you qualify and have filed <5 EPO applications in the last five years. Introduced 1 April 2024; see the EPO FAQ and Guidelines A-X 9.4. (epo.org)
  • OSIM fee reductions exist in defined situations (e.g., certain legal entities, public-funded research outputs). Check OSIM’s fee-reduction page for current thresholds and categories. (OSIM)

Putting it together: three playbooks you can apply tomorrow

Playbook A — Hardware/IoT product launching at a fair

  1. NDA everywhere until filing.
  2. File a priority application (RO or EP) before the fair. Include drawings, parameter ranges, and test data.
  3. Within 12 months, file PCT or EP claiming priority. (OMPI)
  4. After EP grant, consider Unitary Patent (now includes Romania) + classic validations for non-UP states you need. (epo.org)

Playbook B — Software/AI platform with measurable system-level effects

  1. Identify and document the further technical effect (e.g., lower cache miss rate; less I/O contention; battery thermal limits respected with fewer throttling events).
  2. Draft claims around technical features that cause the effect; include architecture-specific benchmarks.
  3. File first; keep marketing claims aligned with the technical story in the spec. (epo.org)

Playbook C — Formulation/med-device improving stability/safety

  1. Build comparative data vs. the closest prior art; show a surprising or purposive effect (selection-invention logic). (epo.org)
  2. Ensure enablement across the claim scope (not just one batch). (epo.org)
  3. File priority; expand within 12 months; use PCT if you need time to grow the data package. (OMPI)

Romania-centric notes you’ll ask about anyway

  • Where do I file online? OSIM provides patent e-filing (and is PCT receiving office); see OSIM guidance. (OSIM)
  • Is a patent the only tool? For fast domestic protection of mechanical inventions with moderate inventiveness, consider a utility model (Romania-only; up to 10 years; excludes processes). (OSIM)
  • Do EPs still matter now that UP exists? Yes—UP is optional and covers only participating EU states (now including Romania). You may still need classical EP validations where UP doesn’t reach. (Piața Internă și IMM-uri)

Common failure modes to avoid (seen weekly in practice)

  • Pitching before filing (“we needed feedback”). In Europe, that is usually fatal to novelty; don’t bank on the narrow Art. 55 grace exceptions. (epo.org)
  • Hand-wavy claims (“optimized module”). Expect Art. 84 clarity objections; anchor claims in concrete technical features/parameters. (epo.org)
  • Promising effects without teaching how (chemistry/med-device). That brings Art. 83 sufficiency trouble. (epo.org)
  • Adding matter during prosecution (broadening beyond what you filed). The Art. 123(2) trap is unforgiving—plan fallback positions from day one. (epo.org)
  • Confusing patentability with FTO. They are different analyses; plan (and budget) for both.

Quick reference you can keep near your keyboard

  • What is patentable in Europe? EPC Art. 52 (overview). (epo.org)
  • Novelty / state of the art: EPC Art. 54. (epo.org)
  • Inventive step: EPC Art. 56 (problem–solution). (epo.org)
  • Enablement: EPC Art. 83; Guidelines F-III. (epo.org)
  • Clarity/support: EPC Art. 84. (epo.org)
  • Non-prejudicial disclosures (narrow 6-month exceptions): EPC Art. 55; EPO study. (epo.org)
  • Software/AI patentability: Guidelines G-II 3.6 / 3.6.1 / 3.6.3. (epo.org)
  • Selection inventions: Guidelines G-VI, 7. (epo.org)
  • Added-matter: Art. 123(2) case-law outline. (epo.org)
  • Romanian patent law: Law 64/1991 (republished). (Ampeid)
  • Romanian utility models: Law 350/2007 + Implementing Regulations; OSIM FAQs. (OSIM)
  • Unitary Patent—Romania in since 1 Sept 2024: EPO & EC pages. (epo.org)
  • Micro-entity 30% EPO fee reduction: EPO FAQ & Guidelines A-X 9.4. (epo.org)

Final thought
Treat patenting like product design: iterate, test, and version your specification as carefully as your code or CAD. File before you talk, tell a reproducible technical story with data, and choose the protection route that matches your market. With Romania in the Unitary Patent system since 1 September 2024, European strategies now scale to Bucharest by default—while OSIM national patents and utility models remain sharp local tools when you need speed or focus. (epo.org)