More guidance on applying G 2/21 - T 1950/23

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.

Read More
Priority entitlement and sufficiency of disclosure – T 883/23
EPO case law, EPO practice, EPO T decisions Michał Dąbrówka EPO case law, EPO practice, EPO T decisions Michał Dąbrówka

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.

Read More
T 1847/23 - technical effect not taken into account in view of G 2/21

T 1847/23 - technical effect not taken into account in view of G 2/21

T 1847/23 demonstrates how application of G 2/21 could differ between different instances of the EPO; in the present case, the Opposition Division found in the favour of the patentee, while the Board took a stricter approach and did not allow the patentee to rely on the purported technical effect in question. Read more in the latest article.

Read More
Webinar on EPO practice: G 2/21 and Inventive Step – Reliance on a Purported Technical Effect

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.

Read More
There’s an alternative, and then there’s an ‘alternative’ - T 1468/23

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.

Read More