Non-reproducible commercial products and inventive step – T 1044/23
In T 1044/23, the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO applied the principles of G 1/23 in the context of inventive step. Read more in our latest blog post.
Priority entitlement and sufficiency of disclosure – T 883/23
T 883/23 serves as a reminder that compliance with the requirement of “the same invention” of Article 87(1) EPC is not merely a matter of direct and unambiguous disclosure; notably, the claimed subject matter must have also been sufficiently disclosed in the earlier application. Read more in our latest blog post.
Webinar on EPO practice: G 2/21 and Inventive Step – Reliance on a Purported Technical Effect
In this on-demand webinar, we review selected decisions applying G 2/21 and share key takeaways for those working with European patent portfolios, particularly in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors.
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.
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.