A patent may only consist of one invention or a group of inventions which are connected by one single inventive concept. This requirement of unity is thereby examined by the European Patent Office during a search. Thereby, an inconsistency a posteriorimay exist, namely an inconsistency which is obviously independent from the state of the art determined during the search. Further, an inconsistency a posteriori may appear in case, for example, an independent main claim is not novel regarding the searched state of the art and therefore the application false apart into different inventions which are no longer connected by one common inventive concept. If such an inconsistency a posteriori is determined and in case at least one of these inventions should be pursued, such an additional fee has to be paid.

This is the topic of the decision T0755/14 of the board of appeal of the EPO. Basically, the consideration of inconsistency a posteriori is possible. However, it is necessary for the charging of additional search fees to perform an examination of this unity. Such an examination, however, requires an examination of the particularly technical features of the respective invention according to the already determined state of the art concerning novelty and inventive step. A simple literal reproduction of the features from the claims is not sufficient for an examination of the unity a posteriori which requires that the particular technical features of the dependent claims are determined a posteriori, which means after examination of its novelty and inventive step according to the cited state of the art. In the present case this remained undone so that the additional search fees paid by the applicant had to be paid back.