EPO to Use AI Tools for Minuting Oral Proceedings

The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced a pilot project to implement artificial intelligence tools to assist in the preparation of minutes during oral proceedings conducted by videoconference. This development represents a notable evolution in the EPO's approach to procedural documentation, but aligns with the recent trend of increasing AI adoption by the EPO generally.

EPO to Use AI Tools for Minuting Oral Proceedings

Background: Manually-Recorded Minutes

The EPO has consistently maintained that oral proceedings are not to be recorded, by the EPO, parties to proceedings, or the public, with the minutes prepared by the responsible EPO division serving as the only official record. The 2025 Guidelines for Examination (E-III, 10.1) specify that "Sound recordings are made only in the case of taking of evidence. The recording is kept until the end of any possible proceedings. Copies of the recording will not be provided to the parties." This limited exception has been the only context in which any form of recording was permitted during EPO proceedings.

The New AI Initiative

In an announcement dated April 8, 2025, the EPO stated it will begin using AI to assist in preparing minutes for oral proceedings conducted by videoconference. The EPO has provided some clarity regarding how use of an AI tool to this end will be implemented:

  • Oral proceedings held by videoconference before the Receiving Section, examining divisions, opposition divisions and the Legal Division may be audio recorded by the EPO
  • The pilot will initially be limited to proceedings conducted in English.
  • These recordings will be deleted once the minutes of oral proceedings are issued to the parties to proceedings.
  • This will apply from 1 May 2025 
  • The recording or transmittal of oral proceedings in any form by participants other than EPO employees remains prohibited.

Implications for Patent Practitioners

This development reflects the EPO’s growing recognition that carefully implemented and appropriately supervised AI tools may help to enhance procedural efficiency without compromising legal certainty.

For patent attorneys regularly appearing before the EPO, this pilot also raises interesting questions about the future role of AI in proceedings. Although recording proceedings by other participants is still expressly prohibited, if the EPO itself is now utilizing AI tools during oral proceedings, might similar technologies eventually be permitted for use by participating parties?

At Solve Intelligence, we are closely monitoring these developments and the wave of AI adoption across patent offices around the world more generally. The EPO themselves have stated that "The EPO is committed to using AI and machine learning technologies to increase quality and efficiency in the patent grant process [...] closely following a human-centric approach." We share this human-centric philosophy at Solve Intelligence, where we believe in putting patent attorneys in the driving seat of AI adoption. Our approach focuses on augmenting—not replacing—attorney expertise, ensuring that human judgment remains central while leveraging AI to handle routine tasks and improve efficiency. We recognize that the most effective AI solutions for patent practice are those that complement attorneys' specialized knowledge while giving them complete control over the final work product.

Related articles

How to Build an Invalidity Claim Chart: A Practical Guide

An invalidity claim chart is a structured document that maps, for example, each limitation of a patent claim against prior art to show the patent should never have been granted. If you’re defending against infringement allegations, preparing an IPR petition, opposing a European patent, or advising a client on patent risk, knowing how to build one correctly is non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

•       A well-built invalidity chart maps every claim limitation to prior art, element by element, with pinpoint citations to the exact column, line, page, or figure.

•       When IPRs reach a final written decision, the PTAB now finds every challenged claim unpatentable around 70% of the time; and the chart is a key component of getting a petition instituted in the first place.

•       Solve Intelligence’s Charts generates fully cited, limitation-by-limitation invalidity charts in minutes rather than days, flags weak limitation coverage candidly, and lets attorneys inspect the reasoning behind every mapping.

LAC 2026: What Generic and Biosimilar IP Teams Think About AI

Generic and biosimilar IP teams are already using AI for prosecution history and FTO work. The live debate is not about adoption, but internal framing of quality and coverage extension without reducing headcount. The teams furthest along chose the former.

Key takeaways

  • Generic and biosimilar IP teams use AI primarily for prosecution history summaries, invalidity analysis and FTO claim charting.
  • Viewing AI as a quality and coverage extension drives durable internal adoption.
  • General-purpose AI cannot reliably interpret claim scope from prosecution history; patent-specific tools are required.

Aliza Panjwani Joins Solve

We’re happy to welcome Aliza Panjwani as a Legal & Product Engineer.

Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

We are excited to welcome Dan Rudoy, Shareholder at Wolf Greenfield, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.