1. General

2. Time limits

3. Basis for the search

4. Scope of the search

5. Limitation of the search for reasons other than non-unity

Where the applicant has not filed an electronic sequence listing conforming to WIPO Standard ST.25 in response to a request from the ISA, or has not paid the late furnishing fee, the WO‑ISA will indicate under Section III that the written opinion is limited to the same extent as the search was limited because the applicant failed to comply with Rule 5.2 (no sequence listing) and/or Rule 13ter.1(a) (no computer-readable sequence listing).[Rule 

In the case of lack of unity where more than one invention has been searched, for each invention searched one independent claim in each category must be treated in detail.

See GL/PCT‑EPO B-VII for further details.

If the priority document is not available, the opinion will be established on the assumption that the claimed priority is valid. In this case, no comments need be made regarding "P" documents, but the "P" documents will nevertheless be indicated under Section VI.

Normally, priority need only be checked if a relevant P or E document is found during the search. However, there may also be cases where the examiner immediately realises that the priority is not valid (e.g. in the case of an alleged doublure (see GL/PCT‑EPO B‑IV, 1.1) or a continuation-in-part (see GL/PCT‑EPO F‑VI, 1.4)).