Classes, subclasses and post-grant amendments before the EPO
Narrowing a chemical class of compounds to a sub-class or to a specific compound can be a legitimate strategy for defending a patent before the European Patent Office. However, where the claim in question also defines the class in quantitative terms, such amendments may give rise to objections under Article 123(3) EPC. This article analyses situations in which such amendments may nevertheless result in an extension of the scope of protection, with reference to the relevant EPO case law.
EPO and IP Australia to launch a PCT pilot programme for Australian applicants
From March 2026, EPO and IP Australia will launch a two-year PCT pilot programme enabling Australian applicants to select the EPO as ISA and IPEA. Read more in our latest news item.
EPO fees to increase on 1 April 2026
The EPO has announced increases to several official fees effective from 1 April 2026. This overview explains which fees are affected, which remain unchanged, and how the revised amounts compare with current levels.
‘Bonus’ effect under EPO practice
The concept of a ‘bonus’ effect refers to a situation where inventive step is denied despite the presence of an unexpected technical effect. Although relatively rare, it has been applied in a number of decisions of the Boards of Appeal. Read more in the latest blog post.
More guidance on applying G 2/21 - T 1950/23
T 1950/23 is a further decision applying the principles of G 2/21, addressing the assessment of compliance with its requirements and the circumstances in which post-published data may be relied upon in the evaluation of inventive step. Read more in the latest article.
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.