EIC, EISMEA and the EPO run a pilot to add patent insight to Transition interviews
- ›The European Innovation Council, EISMEA and the European Patent Office signed a letter of intent to pilot EPO support to EIC Transition interview panels.
- ›EPO patent examiners provided non-binding views on novelty, inventive merit and IP strategy for shortlisted proposals from the September 2022 EIC Transition Challenge Call.
- ›The pilot covered two thematic Challenge calls: RNA-based therapies and diagnostics and process and system integration for clean energy technologies.
- ›Patent examiners did not take part in formal evaluation but supplied patent-positioning input 'for information' to the jury.
- ›The initiative is presented as a first step toward a longer-term collaboration to align EIC support with Europe's strategic technology positioning, though it raises confidentiality and evaluation-independence questions.
EIC, EISMEA and EPO launch pilot to bring patent expertise into EIC Transition interviews
The European Innovation Council (EIC) together with the European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) signed a letter of intent to run a pilot that places EPO expertise at the service of the EIC Transition selection process. The pilot targeted proposals invited to panel interviews under the EIC Transition Challenge call that closed on 28 September 2022. EPO experts supplied non-binding reports on technological novelty, inventive merit and proposed intellectual property strategy for shortlisted proposals. The aim is to help the EIC jury better understand patent positioning of candidate projects and to explore a longer-term cooperation that could sharpen Europe’s strategic grasp of key technologies.
What the pilot did and what it covered
Under the pilot activity, EPO patent examiners produced informative reports on short-listed EIC Transition proposals that advanced to jury interviews. The reports contained the EPO experts' view on the technological novelty and inventive merit of the inventions described in the proposals together with commentary on the applicants' proposed future IP strategy. Importantly, patent examiners did not formally participate in the evaluation process. Their assessments were passed to the EIC jury as material provided 'for information' rather than as formal scores or binding recommendations.
| Item | Detail | Notes |
| Parties | European Innovation Council / EISMEA and European Patent Office (EPO) | Letter of intent signed by both organisations |
| Target cohort | Proposals shortlisted for jury interview under EIC Transition Challenge call (Sept 2022) | Call closed 28 September 2022 |
| Activities performed by EPO | Non-binding reports on technological novelty, inventive merit and proposed IP strategy | Reports provided to jury as 'for information' only |
| Challenge topics covered | RNA-based therapies and diagnostics; process and system integration for clean energy | Two of three challenge calls in that round |
| Role in formal evaluation | No formal participation in scoring or decision-making | EPO input supplied to juries but not integrated as evaluator vote |
| Stated objective | Leverage EPO expertise and explore longer-term collaboration | To inform EIC's support of key technologies and Europe’s competitiveness |
Why the EIC wanted patent office input
The EIC has a remit to identify and support breakthrough technologies with potential to scale. Early-stage intellectual property posture is often a crucial element in a deep tech project's route to market and its attractiveness to investors. The EPO sits at the centre of Europe’s patent system and can provide specialist views on novelty, inventive step and likely patentability. The pilot seeks to bring that technical, patent-focused perspective to the EIC selection process so juries can better grasp whether an innovation is likely to survive patent scrutiny and what IP strategy might be realistic for a given project.
What the EPO provided and its limits
EPO examiners provided a non-binding perspective on three areas: technological novelty, inventive merit and the proposed future IP strategy of shortlisted applications. The reports were explicitly labelled as material for information rather than as part of the formal evaluation. That distinction is important. Patentability as assessed by a patent office is not the same as market value or freedom to operate. A favourable patentability opinion does not guarantee commercial success, nor does a weak patentability outlook imply that a project lacks commercial potential.
Context: the EIC Transition programme
The EIC Transition scheme funds activities that move a technology beyond experimental proof of principle towards validation in application-relevant environments and improved market readiness. Grants can be significant and are aimed at companies and research teams seeking to bridge technical maturation and commercialisation. The Transition evaluation process includes remote evaluation by experts and face-to-face jury interviews for shortlisted projects. The pilot applied to proposals that reached the interview stage for the September 2022 Challenge call.
Potential benefits and legitimate concerns
Bringing patent office expertise closer to grant selection offers several potential benefits. Juries gain access to specialist knowledge about patent landscape and patentability which can surface risks and opportunities not visible to scientific or commercial reviewers. For applicants, an early, independent view on IP positioning can inform strategy and attract better-aligned investors or partners.
There are however clear caveats and issues that require attention. First, patentability assessment is distinct from market or investment potential. Patentability assessments are technical and legal, focusing on novelty and inventive step relative to prior art. They do not assess freedom to operate in market, regulatory feasibility or business model viability. Second, the pilot relied on EPO examiners receiving confidential proposal information. That raises questions about confidentiality safeguards, conflict of interest management and the procedural firewall between evaluation and advisory inputs. Third, supplying an additional advisory voice to juries can be helpful if properly framed but risks over-weighting patent considerations relative to business and scientific judgement if juries are not trained to interpret patent office outputs.
Recommendations and next steps for a credible collaboration
If EISMEA and the EPO want to move from a pilot to a longer-term collaboration they will need to put clear governance and transparency measures in place. These should include documented confidentiality arrangements for handling non-public proposals, conflict-of-interest screening for examiners exposed to commercial proposals, and clear guidance to juries on how to treat patent-office input relative to other evaluation dimensions.
The organisations should also commit to evaluation of the pilot itself. Metrics could include whether EPO input changed jury decisions, whether funded projects subsequently filed patents or successfully defended IP positions, and whether early IP advice improved follow-on financing or industrial partnerships. Finally, innovators should continue to receive balanced IP support that combines patentability commentary with freedom-to-operate analysis and commercial IP strategy coaching.
Conclusion
The EIC/EISMEA and EPO pilot is a pragmatic attempt to inject patenting expertise into a major EU innovation funding instrument. The approach recognizes that patent posture can shape deep tech outcomes and investor interest. The non-binding nature of the EPO reports preserves evaluation independence but also limits the pilot's immediate impact. Whether this becomes a sensible long-term feature of EIC processes will depend on how procedural, confidentiality and evaluation-bias issues are managed and on measurable evidence that the extra input improves selection quality or downstream success for funded projects.
Primary sources and timeline
The letter of intent and pilot activity applied to proposals invited to jury interviews following the EIC Transition Challenge Call that closed on 28 September 2022. The public announcement about the pilot was published on 21 December 2022 by the European Innovation Council and EISMEA. The pilot covered the two Challenge topics described above and was presented as a first step towards potential longer-term cooperation.