Filing preparation
From attorney instructions to a complete filing package
A practical workflow for documents, questions and approval before a filing is submitted.
Instructions to file rarely arrive as one finished document. An email thread, several document versions, attachments and an outstanding decision may all be part of the task. Administrative preparation brings those pieces into a clearly identified package that someone else can check.
A complete filing package here means a package that meets the agreed administrative checklist. Whether an application or procedural action meets the legal requirements remains a matter for the responsible attorney. This guide explains the operational workflow, not the requirements of a particular jurisdiction or proceeding.
1. Turn the instruction into a defined task
Start with a short task record: what action is being prepared, for which matter and for which receiving office? Which documents are approved, and which remain drafts? A message such as “please get this ready” may leave all of these questions open. Summarise the task as understood and identify the specific information still needed.
Do not infer substantive decisions from passing comments or from a similar earlier matter. When two instructions conflict, identify both sources and request a clear decision. Record the task owner, their backup and the agreed internal target date. Legal deadline control stays within the separately established process; an internal preparation date is not a substitute.
2. Record the intended version of each item
A package list connects the instruction to the files actually available. It can be brief. Its purpose is to let another person see which file serves which purpose and where a decision is outstanding, without searching the entire correspondence history again.
| Item | Record | Keep open when … |
|---|---|---|
| Instruction | Source and agreed scope | the action or owner is unclear |
| Main document | Filename, version and approval status | competing versions remain |
| Attachments | Description and link to the main document | a referenced attachment is missing |
| Form data | Source of the information entered | sources conflict |
| Final check | Reviewer, result and exceptions | the check is outstanding |
Keep background material separate from the documents intended for filing. An internal comment, working note or comparison copy does not belong in the submission merely because it sits in the same folder. Preserve the source material so the team can understand how the package was assembled.
3. Check the document, not just its filename
A filename containing “final” does not establish approval. Check that the approval refers to the actual version in front of you. If pages are replaced or attachments added later, record what changed and whether it needs another review. Do not silently overwrite an approved version.
Open the intended files. Check legibility, page order, visible blanks and attachment references. Inspect the result of any format conversion as well. This confirms technical and administrative readiness; it does not assess the legal or technical substance of a claim or argument.
Agree the submission route with the responsible team. For Online Filing 2.0, the EPO describes separate tasks such as drafting, signing and submitting, with corresponding access rights. A prepared draft is therefore not the same as a submitted filing.
4. Ask questions that can be answered
A useful query describes the observation, names the decision needed and states the current status. It avoids both a vague “please check” and an unauthorised decision made on the attorney’s behalf. Group related questions into a short list, while keeping any time-sensitive issue clearly visible.
5. Tie approval to an identifiable package
Provide the package list, identified documents and any outstanding exceptions for approval. Record who approved which version. Distinguish approval of the content from the operational instruction about who will submit it and when. Submission should stay within the agreed assignment and the access rights established for that role.
- The matter, action and responsible person are clear.
- The instruction is saved and linked to the package list.
- Intended documents and attachments are present and readable.
- Versions and later changes can be traced.
- Open questions are resolved or explicitly recorded as outstanding.
- Approval, signing and submission have named owners.
- Someone is responsible for the receipt and the post-filing record.
The result is a specific package, a recorded approval and an unambiguous handover. After submission, a separate stage begins: preserve the acknowledgement, compare it with the intended package and update the matter’s working status.
Sources and further reading
Frequently asked questions
- Does a complete package mean the filing has been legally reviewed?
- No. Completeness here refers to the agreed administrative checklist. The responsible attorney assesses the legal requirements and approves the substantive content.
- Can external support use the firm’s existing systems?
- The workflow can be organised within existing systems. It requires an agreed assignment, appropriate access rights and a defined location for instructions, documents and approvals.
- What happens if a document changes after approval?
- Record the change and refer it to the responsible person. The agreed process determines whether renewed approval is required; the earlier approval should not silently be applied to a new version.