There’s an alternative, and then there’s an ‘alternative’ - T 1468/23
In T 1468/23, the EPO’s Board of Appeal overturned the reasoning of the Opposition Division on inventive step after reassessing the comparison between the claimed invention and the closest prior art. Read more in the latest blog post.
Added subject matter, unclear parameters - T 1184/23 and T 1440/23
Two recent decisions from the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal (T 1184/23 and T 1440/23) highlight the complexities of drafting, prosecuting and defending chemical patent applications with parametric definitions in the claims. Our latest article explains the key takeaways from both cases, offering practical guidance for applicants navigating clarity and added subject matter requirements before the EPO.
Divisional applications at the European Patent Office
There are several formal and practical aspects to keep in mind when filing divisional applications at the European Patent Office. Learn more in this article.
A guide to ‘further processing’ at the European Patent Office
Beyond remedying missed deadlines, further processing can offer valuable flexibility during European patent prosecution. Learn how to leverage it effectively as part of a coordinated global filing strategy.
Parameters and (in)sufficiency of disclosure – T 2009/23
In T 2009/23, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office found that a key parameter in the main independent claim could not be reliably determined, leading to fatal insufficiency of disclosure. Learn more in our latest article.
T 1065/23 – on novelty and inventive step of pea protein extracts
T 1065/23 from the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal illustrates how targeted experimental evidence can make or break product-by-process claims in the chemical field. Learn more in our latest article.