Kind of IPC and CPC for patents in LOD

This is the place where the linked data community can ask and respond to questions or share experiences. The moderator will use this forum to announce product related news
Post Reply

Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Torino (Italy)

Kind of IPC and CPC for patents in LOD

Post by Alberto231 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:00 am


I ask you what kind of IPC and CPC are associated to cathegorize a patent in LOD.

In fact the OPS distinguishes different cases, in the table at page 136 of the OPS manual

My guess is that in the case of LOD the CPC used is what defined as cpc in the table 136 of
the OPS manual, whilst the the IPC used is what defined ipc in the table 136 of the OPS.

Hence I guess that in OPS more detailed subcases as cpca, cpci, cpcc , and the same for IPC,
are not considered relevant and hence not coded. Is it correct?

Thank you and best regards

Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:17 am
Location: Vienna

Re: Kind of IPC and CPC for patents in LOD

Post by mkracker » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:16 am

The LOD data set contains all IPC and CPC classifications of EP patents. "Inventive" and "Additional" (= non-inventive) classifications are distinguished.
IPC and CPC classifications are in the newest version (so e.g. IPC is always the newest version of IPC8) and re-classified (= updated in case the classification has changed).
  • IPCs are assigned to publications. We distinguish between these RDF properties:
    - classificationIPCInventive (corresponds to OPS indexes AI plus CI)
    - classificationIPCAdditional (corresponds to OPC indexes AN and CN)
  • CPCs are assigned to applications (because they are the same for all publications of an application). We distinguish between these RDF properties:
    - classificationCPCInventive (corresponds to OPS index CPCI)
    - classificationCPCAdditional (corresponds to OPS index CPCA)
OPS also distinguishes between "core" and "advanced" classification. Nowadays practically everything is classified as "advanced", so this distinction is hardly relevant.

I hope this helps,
Martin / EPO

Post Reply