G 1/24 has now been issued, and concludes “The description and any drawings are always referred to when interpreting the claims, and not just in the case of unclarity or ambiguity.” With this simple proclamation, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) provides clear guidance on the fundamental issue of claim interpretation which has caused much…
Defining antibodies by functional features is not always straightforward at the EPO. T326/22 is a nice example of how this can be achieved. To briefly recap the standard EPO approach, an antibody may generally be claimed by reference to its epitope, i.e. the structurally defined part of the antigen that it specifically binds to…
G 1/24 addresses the extent to which the description can be used to interpret the claims. As previously discussed, it looks set to be one of the most consequential EPO decisions of the decade. The hearing in G 1/24 took place on 28 March, with the opponent advocating a new “diamond standard” that the “description…
One critical factor in developing generative AI is access to a large amount of well-structured data. As such, the EPO is sitting on a goldmine when it comes to AI tools for patent law. I was therefore excited to hear about the recent launch of the EPO’s “legal interactive platform“, which provides information about patent…
In case you missed it, here are the main points from the EPO Boards of Appeal Case Law Conference 2024. As ever, this was a really interesting event with lots of high quality presentations. Above all, it is great to hear at first hand what the Board members themselves think of the hot topics at…
We have long meant to write something about the need, or the lack thereof, for adapting the description to amended claims. The announcement in the second preliminary opinion of Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) 3.3.04 in T 56/21, suggesting a referral of this question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, combined with the sole appellant’s…
Following months of speculation, EPO Board of Appeal 3.2.01 yesterday issued decision T 439/22 referring questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the extent to which the description and drawings should be used in claim interpretation. The claim feature at issue was: “in which the aerosol-forming substrate comprises a gathered sheet”. The key…
Following up on Thorsten’s blog post yesterday, I report on the second day of the Oxviews 9th Intellectual Property and Competition Forum, which took place in the Justizpalast in Munich on 19 June. This impressive building deserves the name Palast (in English “Palace”), and was a fitting venue for this meeting of thought leaders in…
It is well known that the EPO Boards of Appeal take a strict line on admissibility of new elements of the appeal case under Articles 12 and 13 RPBA. But if the request to hold new elements inadmissible is itself filed late, the admissibility of the inadmissibility request may be questioned, see e.g. T 500/16…
Following the issuance of G 2/21 last year, we asked whether the plausibility elephant had left the room. Our Kluwer colleague and friend Miquel Montañá discussed this issue more recently here. Several decisions have meanwhile been issued applying the new “test” in G2/21, the lucidity of which may have reminded readers of the oracle of…
