On deciding where to start within the closest prior art – T 209/25
This article discusses Board of Appeal decision T 209/25, which addresses how to select the correct starting point within the closest prior art when assessing inventive step at the EPO. The decision confirms that an embodiment directly and unambiguously disclosed in the prior art may serve as a viable starting point even if it is non-exemplified, less preferred, and disclosed only via a single selection.
‘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.
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.
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.