The prestigious Financial Times ranking Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms was published on June 12. We are proud to announce that Boco IP has been listed for the first time ever, marking a significant milestone in our journey and a testament to the trust our clients place in us.
This recognition highlights the expertise and dedication of our team in providing high-quality patent law services across Europe. We are honored to be included among the leading firms in the field.
Now that my heart rate has finally slowed down a bit from all the networking and the jetlag from the long travel is slowly fading away, it’s a good time to wrap up the key takeaways from the INTA (International Trademark Association) 2025 annual conference, hosted this year in San Diego.
The roots of the annual trademark professionals’ meeting date back all the way to the 19th century so it’s safe to say it has cemented its status as the yearly place to be for anybody working in the trademark sector. Naturally, the infamous covid-years took a toll on this event, as well, but at least now the glory days are back since this year, the conference gathered around 10 000 participants from all around the world. Just from this number, it should be clear that we are not talking about any small closed-circle happening, either, but rather about a unique once-in-a-year chance to meet colleagues from all around the world in one place. As trademarking practices are generally growing more and more international each year, such a chance shouldn’t be taken for granted.
“Well, what are the benefits for travelling to the other side of the world and is it worth it?”- you might ask. To answer this, I’ve listed a few main takeaways from my perspective:
Firstly, it has to be said that not all participants are alike, and agendas differ for different companies depending on where their focus of business lies. For some, the majority of work comes from bigger national clients who operate quite locally, so the agenda for a meeting like this might be to meet with direct representatives of the clients whereas for more internationally focused companies the agenda often revolves more around meeting foreign representatives from different IPR-agencies, making new connections or strengthening the existing ones.
The case for Boco is closer to the latter one and our main focus, for example, has been on networking – ensuring that we truly know the people we work with and that we have the necessary network around the world to meet our clients’ diverse needs. Especially in modern day, it can be difficult to distinguish “fakes” from genuine professionals as especially with the help of modern AI-tools, anybody can quite easily craft believable websites and appear quite differently from reality. This also demonstrates well how strong brands are needed by everyone.
Secondly, conferences such as this are also great opportunities to spot new business opportunities. Even though quite many IPR-related companies offer somewhat similar services, there are those who are constantly innovating when it comes to for example packaging services and coming up with new innovative ways of helping clients. The yearly conference is thus also a great opportunity to keep track of useful tools and services that are available worldwide.
All in all, the INTA 2025 annual meeting was once again filled with meaningful encounters, new insights, and a renewed sense of global community within the trademark field. While the days were often long and filled with thousands of walked steps, the value of these in-person moments—whether scheduled meetings or spontaneous encounters —can’t be overstated. The conference served as a great reminder of how much the human side of this profession still matters, even in a world that keeps digitalizing faster and faster every day.
The IAM Patent 1000 annually evaluates firms and practitioners through in-depth client interviews, peer feedback, and independent research, then ranks recommendations in Gold, Silver, and Bronze classification.
IAM annually highlights standout professionals within each firm using Gold‑Silver‑Bronze classification: Gold for elite leaders, Silver for strong performers, and Bronze for notable contributors.
An impressive nine of our professionals are listed this year:
Karri Leskinen
Jonna Sahlin
Jaana Hämäläinen
Thomas Carlsson
Marja Liisa Autti
Christian Westerholm
Tomi Salter
Sini-Maaria Mikkilä
Nina Virolainen, in the next generation list
First row from left to right: Christian Westerholm, Tomi Salter, Sini-Maaria Mikkilä, Thomas Carlsson, Marja Liisa Autti
Second row from left to right: Jaana Hämäläinen, Jonna Sahlin, Nina Virolainen and Karri Leskinen
For details on the IAM Patent 1000 2025 Finland rankings, visit IAM’s country listing at:
Boco IP proudly announces our remarkable achievements in the IP STARS 2025 rankings. Our firm has secured one firm-level ranking and five individual rankings on a prestigious platform, across intellectual property, which affirms its status as one of the IPR leaders in the Finnish legal market.
“Being recognized in the IP Stars rankings is a testament to Boco IP’s unwavering commitment to excellence in intellectual property. This achievement reflects not only our deep expertise across a broad spectrum of IP specialisms—from patents and trademarks to strategic IP portfolio management—but also our dedication to delivering innovative, client-focused solutions. We are proud of our team’s exceptional work and grateful for the trust our clients have in us.” says Karri Leskinen, CEO of Boco IP
Alongside Boco IP’s recognition as a Top Tier firm, Peter Åkerlund, Karri Leskinen, Jonna Sahlin, Christian Westerholm, and Jaana Hämäläinen were individually ranked as IP Stars 2025.
📌 Part 6: Sequence Listings of International Applications
What changed:
The Guidelines include new sections clarifying the requirements for incorporating a sequence listing to international applications disclosing one or more nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences, the WIPO standard to comply with, and the calculation of page fee where a sequence listing is included.
🔗 Ref: GL A‑IV, 3
For applications filed on or after 1 July 2022 which contain a sequence listing, the EPO as receiving Office not only accepts sequence listings with language-dependent free text in English or in the same language as used in the international application (French or German), but also permits language-dependent free text to be filed in both English and any other language within a single sequence listing.
🔗 Ref: GL A-VII, 1.2.4
Among other reasons (e.g. lack of unity of invention), a missing sequence listing may also result in the EPO as ISA to not be able to issue the International Search Report and Written Opinion, or the claimed subject matter may only be covered in part.
🔗 Ref: GL B‑VIII, 1
Where applicable, the EPO as SISA will only start the supplementary international search after receiving a copy of the compliant sequence listing. If not received, the EPO will invite the applicant to furnish the sequence listing and to pay a late furnishing fee.
🔗 Ref: GL B‑XII, 2
💡 Why it matters:
While being mostly clarifying updates, the new and updated sections offer an improved overview of the format and procedural requirements of the sequence listings of international applications.
✅ What to watch out for or do differently:
✔ Make sure to timely furnish sequence listings to international applications disclosing one or more nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences, as well as to comply with the format requirements as now specified in the Guidelines.
The Guidelines now reflect the possibility to use The EPO Contingency Upload Service as a backup method for filing debit orders, in situations where the standard payment methods are unavailable or inaccessible. The Contingency Upload Service may exceptionally be used if certain conditions are met:
the payment period expires on the day of the debit order’s submission;
the deposit account contains sufficient funds for the debit to be carried out; and
evidence is provided that the payee is affected by such unavailability, outage or system malfunction, irrespective of its cause.
🔗 Ref: GL A‑III, 3 / GL A-X, 4.2.3
💡 Why it matters:
The EPO Contingency Upload Service offers a new backup method for payment, allowing timely payment of fees in exceptional circumstances so that important time limits (procedural acts, patent renewals, etc.) may be met.
✅ What to watch out for or do differently: ✔ With exceptional and surprising circumstances in mind, be aware of the options provided by the EPO Contingency Upload Service (also in relation to submitting documents to the EPO).
📌 Part 3: Opposition Procedures and Correction of Errors
What changed:
The EPO has introduced provisions to expedite opposition proceedings, particularly when parallel litigation is pending before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) or national courts. Upon a justified request, the EPO may reduce time limits, issue summonses more promptly, and schedule oral proceedings at an earlier date. 🔗 Ref: GL E‑VIII, 5
The Guidelines now provide clearer instructions on correction of linguistic errors, errors of transcription and mistakes in any document filed with the EPO. Corrections are allowable if it is immediately evident that an error has occurred and what the correction should be, and if filed promptly, aligning with decision G 1/12. 🔗 Ref: GL H‑VI, 2.2
💡 Why it matters: These updates aim to enhance clarity in opposition proceedings as well as in the process of correcting the errors. Accelerated opposition processing can lead to quicker resolutions, while the clarified correction procedures ensure that errors are addressed promptly and appropriately.
✅ What to watch out for or do differently: ✔ If the applicant is involved in parallel litigation, consider requesting accelerated opposition proceedings to align timelines.
✔ Ensure that any corrections to application documents are made promptly and meet the clarified criteria to avoid admissibility objections.
The EPO has clarified that parties and their representatives remain fully responsible for the content of patent applications and submissions—even if these were prepared with the help of AI tools. 🔗 Ref: GL Foreword, section 5
The updated Guidelines reaffirm that AI and machine learning (ML) inventions are not excluded from patentability simply because they involve computational models or algorithms. Specifically, if a claim related AI or ML is directed to a method involving the use of technical means or to a device, its subject-matter has technical character and is not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) or (3) EPC. In such cases, the computational models and algorithms contribute to the technical character of the invention if they contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem e.g. by being applied in a field of technology and/or by being adapted to a specific technical implementation. 🔗 Ref: GL GII, 3.3.1
💡 Why it matters: Applicants using AI tools must ensure full EPC compliance, regardless of how content is generated. For patenting AI/ML inventions, technical application and implementation is key to overcoming exclusion risks.
✅ What to watch out for or do differently: ✔ Ensure AI-generated content is fully reviewed and aligned with EPC standards. ✔ Don’t treat AI-related inventions as “automatically excluded” — they can be patentable if framed correctly.
📌 First up: Filing, Signatures & Authorisations – What’s New in 2025?
What changed:
Traditional channels like fax and web-forms are being discontinued in line with the EPO’s digital transformation. Applicants are encouraged to use MyEPO Portfolio and Online Filing 2.0 for secure, digital filings and communications with the EPO. This change has been addressed in many relevant parts of the Guidelines 2025.
Authorisations may bear handwritten, facsimile, or text-string signatures, or digital signatures under the conditions specified by the EPO. Where a digital signature is used, the authorisation must be filed electronically. 🔗 Ref: AVIII, 1.6
An enhanced electronic signature is an electronic signature applied using two-factor authentication and accepted by the EPO. 🔗 Ref: AVIII, 3.3
💡 Why it matters: These changes modernize procedural tools but raise the technical expectations—especially around the correct use of digital signatures. Using outdated methods like fax, or submitting a digitally signed authorisation via post, can now lead to rejections.
✅ What to watch out for or do differently: ✔ Migrate to MyEPO Portfolio for electronic interactions during your proceedings. ✔ Make sure digitally signed authorisations are filed electronically, not on paper. ✔ Ensure your digital signature tool meets the EPO’s two-factor (enhanced) criteria.
Boco IP is proud to announce that its Chairman of the Board and European Patent Attorney, Jonna Sahlin, has received multiple prestigious international recognitions for her expertise in intellectual property (IP). She is featured in the latest LexologyIndex report as one of the few Finnish leaders in IP: Thought Leaders – IP – Reports – Lexology Index – Lexology. Who’s Who Legal rebranded it’s name to Lexology Index last year.
In 2024, Jonna was named to the IAM Strategy 300 list, which recognizes the world’s leading IP strategists. This distinguished honor is awarded to professionals who have demonstrated exceptional insight into the development, creation, and management of intellectual property value. She has also been featured on the IAM Global Leaders list, which highlights the world’s top patent professionals.
Additionally, Jonna has been recognized by Managing IP as a Patent star 2024 and Top 250 Women in IP 2024 underscoring her dedication and expertise in the field.
Boco IP, one of Finland’s oldest and most respected IP firms, has been providing tailored intellectual property solutions since 1928. Jonna’s achievements reflect Boco IP’s ongoing commitment to excellence and expertise in IP management.
