‘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.
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.
G 1/23 - reproducibility not a requirement for a commercial product to be prior art
The Enlarged Board of Appeal finds in G 1/23 that non-reproducible commercial products are part of the state of the art. Learn the key takeaways here.
Third-party observations during prosecution before the EPO (2)
Looking to challenge a competitor’s European patent application? This article explores practical aspects of third-party observations (TPOs) at the European Patent Office. Learn how to use TPOs tactically - timing, objections, handling of TPOs as an applicant, and more - explained by a European and UK patent attorney.