What the dialogue with EPO reveals: checkpoints for European filing routes and acceleration options

The European Patent Office (EPO) held a hybrid online and offline meeting with Zebra Technologies on 15 9, 2026, and the related report was published on 20 10. Zebra Technologies is a U.S. multinational technology company focused on intelligent data capture systems, covering barcode scanning, machine vision, radio frequency identification, location technology and robotics; the company has about 1.07 ten thousand employees, revenue of about 54 hundred million U.S. dollars in the previous year, and through a series of acquisitions, about 8000 patents and patent applications worldwide.

According to the source disclosure, this meeting was an initiative under the EPO quality action plan to deepen dialogue with users and collect feedback; EPO said this was the 19 meeting with large applicants in 2026, and the 125 meeting since the mechanism was launched in 2021. 19 times a year shows this is a regular arrangement rather than an occasional one — but the number shows the frequency of the mechanism's operation, not that feedback is necessarily adopted.

For Chinese companies expanding overseas that are planning a European patent layout, such meetings are not rule texts in themselves, but they disclose what EPO and large applicants are discussing, and can serve as an observation window when comparing internal plans.

Judging from the source, the meeting content roughly centered on three levels.

First, the applicant's strategic orientation. Zebra explained how the company redefined its patent application strategy to use intellectual property more strategically and to strengthen its focus on Europe and the unitary patent. This statement reflects one applicant's internal orientation, not a requirement imposed by EPO on applicants.

Second, application routes and procedural tools. The two sides exchanged views on different application routes, including filing European applications directly with EPO and entering via the PCT route, as well as national validation, the strengthened partnership and the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). These contents are exchanges at the procedural level, and the source does not state that the applicable conditions of any route have changed.

Third, digital services and acceleration options. EPO introduced upcoming MyEPO improvements, including the possibility of bulk filing of PACE (Programme for Accelerated Prosecution of European patent applications) requests, which gave rise to discussion on acceleration options and the EPO accelerated application process.

There is a timing discrepancy here that must be corrected. The meeting report's wording is "upcoming", but EPO already launched the bulk filing of PACE requests function on MyEPO on 1 10, 2026, and the same batch of improvements also includes an application progress timeline panel. The supporting basis is the 11 9, 2026 EPO announcement (OJ 2026 EPO, A44; for the timeline panel see A45). In other words, this function was already available at the time this article was published and is no longer a "to-be-tracked item". What needs attention is only the scope of application: bulk requests are open only to eligible applications and must be submitted through MyEPO's dedicated bulk request function, subject to the announcement and MyEPO operating guidelines.

At the meeting, Zebra Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel Brett Alten repeatedly affirmed the quality of EPO's work and the standard of examination. He said the company had only heard positive comments about the unitary patent, and emphasized that the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court are a strong incentive to file applications with EPO.

These comments need to be viewed on two levels. First, they are the views of a representative of a participating company, not an official conclusion of EPO, nor a judgment on the application outcome of any specific company; "only heard positive comments" describes the information environment this company is in — peer exchanges, advisor opinions and EPO introductions — and is not itself evidence of the system's effect. Second, the speaker's position has structural reasons: Zebra owns about 8000 patents and applications, and licensing and litigation are its routine business tools; the value of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court to such right holders lies in one procedure covering multiple countries and one lawsuit reaching multiple national markets. For Chinese exporting companies that are mainly defensive and have relatively concentrated sales countries, the other side of the same mechanism is concentrated invalidation risk — being overturned in one procedure, with consequences covering all participating member states. The same system does not mean the same thing for the two types of companies.

So how can companies expanding overseas use this information? A more prudent approach is to treat it as a trigger for a "checklist", not as a new rule:

First, check the basis for choosing your own European application route. If a company is considering both direct European applications and the PCT route, it can state in its internal plan the applicable scenarios, timing and subsequent procedural connections of each, and then confirm with a professional advisor.

Second, check the availability of acceleration tools. Bulk filing of PACE requests has been available since 1 10, 2026, and companies can adjust their schedules accordingly; but PACE is free of additional charge and does not change the substantive standards of examination, and after filing there are corresponding requirements on response deadlines, and withdrawal also has established procedures, so the EPO announcement and operating guidelines should still prevail.

Third, check the scope of discussion on unitary patent-related decisions. The unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court were described by the participating company as incentives, but whether a company is eligible and how to assess dispute risk still need separate analysis in light of its own patent portfolio and market arrangements; it is suggested to judge "whether to accept the centralized jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court" as a separate item, rather than merging it into a cost comparison.

Fourth, check communication channels. EPO maintains regular, targeted dialogue with large applicants through the quality action plan, showing that a regular communication mechanism exists; but the dialogue targets and topics are arranged by EPO, and the source does not explain the specific way Chinese companies participate in such dialogue, so it should not be inferred that any company can apply to participate on its own initiative. If companies want to express opinions, a more realistic path is through agencies, industry associations or EPO's public user activities.

Overall, the value of this source lies in presenting the procedural topics currently discussed between EPO and large applicants, rather than announcing rule changes. Chinese companies planning a European layout can use it to check whether their route choices and acceleration arrangements have a clear basis; as for the MyEPO improvements mentioned at the meeting, items already launched should be checked against the new functions, and items not yet launched should be listed as to-be-tracked items.

Summary

This source can be summarized into three facts. First, EPO held a quality dialogue meeting with Zebra Technologies on 15 9, 2026, which is a regular arrangement under its quality action plan, the 19 meeting in 2026 and the 125 meeting since the mechanism was launched in 2021. Second, the application routes and procedural tools discussed by the two sides include direct European applications, the PCT route, national validation, the strengthened partnership, PPH and MyEPO improvements, and the source does not state that the applicable conditions of any route have changed. Third, the bulk filing of PACE requests function described in the meeting report as "upcoming" was officially launched by EPO on 1 10, 2026 (OJ 2026 EPO, A44; for the application progress timeline panel see A45), and this function was already available at the time this article was published.

At the same time, two points need to be noted: Zebra's statements that it had "only heard positive comments about the unitary patent" and that "the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court are a strong incentive to file applications with EPO" are evaluations by a representative of a participating company, not rule explanations by EPO; the source also does not provide case data, applicable conditions or separate information for Chinese applicants.

The above is only a summary of the content disclosed by the source, does not represent the observations or views of any individual, institution or company, and does not constitute a judgment on the application or dispute outcome of any specific company.

Sources: EPO "EPO meets with Zebra Technologies" (20 10, 2026); EPO "Latest MyEPO improvements: application progress tracking, bulk PACE requests and more"; OJ 2026 EPO, A44, A45.

Note: This article is general popularization in the field of intellectual property and observation of public industry practice, and does not constitute formal legal advice for any specific subject or specific case. The publication and reading of this article do not establish an attorney-client agency relationship; because legal rules differ across jurisdictions and the facts of specific cases vary, the content herein cannot be used directly as a basis for individual case decisions; for specific legal questions, please consult professional intellectual property service personnel with lawful practice qualifications in the corresponding jurisdiction.