7 September 2026

On 7 September 2026, we filed a request for revocation of European patent E038266, which is in force in Hungary and is associated with Antal Rogán and his co-inventors.

👉 View the submission and supporting documents

We are making these documents publicly available in the interest of transparency and open professional scrutiny.

Hungary deserves no less

Motivations

For PatentReview, this case is not a party-political issue. It concerns something much simpler and, for us, much more important: the integrity of Hungary’s engineering and scientific community, the credibility of the patent system, and ultimately the national interest.

In the homeland of John von Neumann, patent protection should rest on genuine technical achievement. This is particularly important where that protection serves as the basis for significant economic benefits.

The value of a patent is not determined by how much financial or reputational advantage can be derived from it, but by whether it withstands the professional and statutory requirements of patent law.

If patent protection remains in force despite failing to meet those requirements, the consequences extend beyond the individual case: it may weaken confidence in the patent system, in professional achievement, and ultimately in innovation itself.

In the long term, this harms above all those who genuinely conduct research, develop new technologies, invent, take risks, and devote years of work to creating new technical solutions.

That is precisely why we decided to make our revocation request public.

Anyone who wishes to do so may read it, analyse it, and examine our arguments, references, and conclusions.

We welcome all substantive professional comments, particularly from those who have deeper expertise than we do in any of the relevant technical or legal questions.

If we identify an error, inaccuracy, or omission in our work, we will correct it.

For us, transparency is not a communications tool. It is a condition of credibility.

Our objective was clear from the outset: to prepare a technically and legally substantiated revocation request capable of providing sufficient grounds for the revocation of the Hungarian effect of the patent.

Following several months of analysis, prior-art research, and a detailed examination of the patent text, we have reached the professional conclusion that we have achieved that objective.

The decision, however, is not ours.

The decision belongs to the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office.

The Office is faced with a significant technical and legal question, one that may also have economic consequences and implications for public confidence. This is precisely why we spent months ensuring that the revocation request rests on the strongest possible technical and legal foundations.

We do not want public, social, or economic considerations to compete with professional considerations in this case. Quite the opposite: we want there to be no need for any standard other than the one that should be applied to any other patent.

We believe that, in this case, the public interest is best served if the professional and legal standard remains the only standard.

We are not asking for this patent to receive special treatment. We are asking for it to be assessed according to exactly the same technical and legal standards that every other patent must satisfy.

If it satisfies those standards, it should remain in force. If it does not, it should be revoked — irrespective of who the inventor is or how substantial the economic interests connected to it may be.

Patent-law conclusions cannot properly be drawn from public impressions or personal assumptions. The validity of a patent must be assessed on the basis of documents, technical facts, and legal requirements.

That is why we examined the protected subject matter page by page, claim by claim, and technical feature by technical feature, in order to determine whether it satisfies the statutory requirements necessary for patent protection to remain in force.

We did not investigate who created the protected solution or under what personal circumstances it was developed.

Our question was whether the protected subject matter itself complies with the statutory requirements for patent protection, in particular the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure.

After several months of analysis, we reached the professional conclusion that objections of such significance can be raised in relation to these requirements that, in our view, they provide sufficient grounds for revocation of the patent’s effect in Hungary.

At the same time, we do not wish to avoid the question of Antal Rogán’s status as an inventor.

We do not state as a fact that he did not make a substantive contribution as an inventor to the development of the invention. Determining that question is not, in any event, the subject matter of the present revocation proceedings.

However, in the course of our detailed analysis of the patent text, the prior art, and the technical relationships identified by us, it did not become clearly identifiable to us which specific technical element of the claimed solution can be linked to an inventive contribution specifically attributable to Antal Rogán.

Professional questions therefore remain for us in this respect.

We publicly stand behind the professional basis of this conclusion and are prepared, before any appropriate professional or legal forum, to explain point by point the technical and legal chain of reasoning by which we arrived at this position.

The economic significance of the case should not be overlooked either. Significant financial interests, amounting to billions of forints, are connected with the exploitation of the patent concerned. This makes it particularly important that the legal and technical foundations of the patent protection withstand rigorous professional scrutiny.

This, of course, does not in itself imply unlawful conduct, nor do we seek to draw conclusions regarding any personal or economic motivation that may have led to the acquisition of the patent protection.

It does, however, demonstrate that the continued existence of the patent is not merely a theoretical or academic matter, but one with very tangible economic consequences.

For precisely this reason, we consider it particularly important that the matter be decided not by political sympathy, public opinion, or personal impressions, but by the rules of patent law and verifiable technical facts.

Our task was not to pass judgement on a person.

Our task was to examine a patent.

We have done that.

We collected the documents.
We identified the prior art.
We set out our arguments.
We filed the revocation request.

It is now for the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office to decide whether the challenged patent satisfies the statutory requirements under which patent protection may remain in force in Hungary.

For our part, we stand behind our work — openly, under our own names, and with our arguments available for scrutiny.

If we are wrong, we want to know where and why. If we have made an error, we will correct it. If someone knows more than we do about a particular question, we are prepared to learn from them.

In this matter, PatentReview represents neither an economic interest nor a party-political interest.

We have one objective: that the same professional standard should apply to every patent in Hungary.

It is in all of our interests that a patent should represent genuine technical achievement. That the word “inventor” should carry distinction. That those who genuinely create something new should have their work recognised and protected. And that the credibility of Hungarian engineering and scientific achievement should not be weakened by patent rights that cannot withstand the scrutiny of the law and the professional community.

Hungary deserves no less.

Nothing to Hide

So There Is Something Behind It

National Interest