Journal

Early disclosure of patent applications at the IPO

At the start of June, CIPA’s Chief Executive wrote to the IPO with a series of questions concerning the early disclosure of patent applications. On 23 June, CIPA was sent IPO’s answers which are set out below.

Thank you for your letter dated 6 June 2025 to Adam concerning the early disclosure of patent applications, and for a helpful follow-up call. I appreciate that this matter will be a concerning one for CIPA members and the wider patent community. As promised, I am following up with a written reply to your questions, which I hope will provide helpful clarification and reassurance.

1. How many patent applications were subject to the breach, and, of those, how many were from unrepresented applicants?

388 applications were subject to the premature disclosure, of which 18 were from unrepresented applicants.

2. Can you confirm that this only applied to applications for which the right to withdraw before publication had already been exhausted?

Yes, each application was disclosed either one week or two weeks ahead of its expected publication date. As such, preparations for publication were complete and the opportunity to prevent publication by withdrawing the application had passed.

3. Who had access to the server and what was the contractual basis for that access?

Aside from some IPO staff, the server is accessible by a number of IP offices, such as the European Patent Office, and a number of commercial providers of patent and trade mark information. Secure credentials are required to access the server, which are provided to users on completion of an application process including agreement to abide by associated conditions of use.

4. Was the server accessible by the general public?

No, the server was only accessible to those with secure credentials as described above. However, our investigations have revealed that the accidentally published information was subsequently made available to the public by at least one of the commercial providers.

5. What measures have been taken to mitigate the risk and prevent a recurrence of the breach?

The breach was caused by an unusual and unfortunate combination of factors. First, there was a failure in the process for uploading information which was correctly due to be published on the day in question. The process was manually refreshed twice in an attempt to complete the missing data which was due for publication, but this inadvertently led to further information, which was queued for publication in the subsequent weeks, to be released early.

The measures we have taken to prevent a recurrence therefore include technical changes to prevent the process being capable of releasing information early, and procedural changes to ensure that a simple manual refresh is not attempted in the event of the process initially failing.

Staff have also been reminded how critical it is that our publication processes result in the right information being made available to the public via the appropriate channels at the appropriate time.

6. What learning will the IPO take from this?

In addition to the above, our One IPO Transformation Programme recognises the need to provide a modern infrastructure and a single, integrated system to host our services. The platform on which this breach occurred is part of our existing systems which will be replaced by the Transformation Programme.

7. Was the breach linked to the One IPO digital transformation project in any way?

No – as above, the breach was linked to an existing system which will be replaced by the One IPO Transformation Programme.

8. Has the IPO considered any further action to address the breach, such as a Statutory Instrument covering these patent applications?

As noted in the letter to affected customers, the early disclosure is considered to constitute a breach under section 118(2) of the Patents Act. The information disclosed will form prior art under section 2(2) of that Act as of the date of the disclosure (but only became prior art under section 2(3) once the applications were properly published under section 16). We do not believe it would be possible to legislate retrospectively to reverse these consequences of the breach.

Due to the relatively short period of time between the accidental disclosure and the planned publication date, and because the deadline for withdrawal had passed in all cases, we do not anticipate any significant detrimental impacts on the rights of applicants and third parties. However, that does not mean we underestimate the seriousness of a breach having occurred, and we of course remain on hand to assist any customers who have further questions or concerns. We are grateful for your offer of pro bono services to individual applicants in this regard, and I have asked my officials to contact you to make the necessary arrangements.

We also intend to publish a special notice in the Patents Journal detailing the breach and the affected applications, so that the early disclosure remains a matter of public record.

Andy Bartlett, Deputy CEO and Director of Services