Aug 18, 2025
Entering an oral-proceedings hearing in the Boards of Appeal online calendar is not an indispensable requirement for safeguarding the principle of public access. Consequently, the mere absence of such an entry does not,…
Read more →Aug 11, 2025
The principle that a claimed sub-range must be “narrow” relative to a known range and “sufficiently far removed” from any specific examples in order to confer novelty is, following T 1688/20 (which held that the concept…
Read more →Aug 6, 2025
When assessing whether a combination of features is disclosed in the application as filed, the so-called “gold standard” requires that the combination be directly and unambiguously derivable from the original documents.…
Read more →Aug 4, 2025
We are pleased to announce that Paul Maierhofer has successfully passed the European qualifying examination (EQE) and has been registered in the list of professional representatives before the European Patent Office.…
Read more →Aug 1, 2025
The widespread availability and use of chatbots based on large language models or artificial-intelligence techniques does not, by itself, justify assuming that an answer generated by such a system accurately reflects…
Read more →Jul 28, 2025
Although a valid intervention by the alleged infringer is to be treated as an opposition under Article 105(2) EPC, the fact that it is filed shortly before the oral proceedings before a Board generally does not relieve…
Read more →Jul 21, 2025
The requirement underlying the “specific use” within the meaning of Article 54(5) EPC, as expressly concluded by the Enlarged Board in decision G 2/08, is to be interpreted only in contrast to the broad, general…
Read more →Jul 14, 2025
Human–animal chimeras and methods for their production are excluded from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC if the invention infringes human dignity. This is the case, for example, where the claimed subject-matter…
Read more →Jul 7, 2025
Even if the patentee’s conduct during the development of the invention were regarded as contrary to morality and public order (in the case at hand: research on traditional antimalarial remedies among the Indigenous…
Read more →To determine whether a submission was “admissibly raised” within the meaning of the conditional clause in Article 12(4) RPBA, the Board of Appeal places itself in the position of the department of first instance and…
Read more →Where the claimed invention contains a physical parameter having an open-ended range in one direction that cannot be reproduced on the basis of common general knowledge together with the rest of the invention, the range…
Read more →May an appeal proceed after all appeals have been withdrawn solely with a third party who has intervened in the appeal proceedings as an alleged infringer? In particular, can that intervener acquire the standing of an…
Read more →Jun 16, 2025
The mere fact that the claimed subject-matter excludes a technical feature disclosed in the closest prior art as essential or advantageous for achieving a technical effect cannot in itself establish an inventive step.…
Read more →The two standards of proof traditionally relied upon by the EPO Boards of Appeal – the “balance of probabilities” and the “beyond reasonable doubt” tests – can be applied in straightforward cases. However, this binary…
Read more →The Board of Appeal is not obliged to take into account facts concerning the admissibility of an appeal or an opposition that are submitted late by a party at any stage of the proceedings (EPO BoA 29 Nov 2024, T 458/22,…
Read more →Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88 are limited to patent claims directed to (new) non-medical uses of a known substance for a specific purpose, and not to manufacturing processes within the meaning of…
Read more →May 6, 2025
Under the UPCA, the Court must independently determine the criteria that must be met for an infringement to exist. The question to be answered is whether the defendants’ conduct indicates with a high degree of…
Read more →May 1, 2025
If a party believes that a technical argument must be supported by a private expert opinion, that party must present the technical argument to the Court in a concise and comprehensible manner. Merely referring to a…
Read more →Apr 29, 2025
Before the application for a preliminary injunction was filed with the Local Division Düsseldorf, one of the defendants had already brought an action for a negative declaration at the national level in the Netherlands…
Read more →Apr 24, 2025
The defendants argue that only the second defendant among the seven defendants performed acts in Germany, and therefore the Local Division Düsseldorf would lack competence with respect to the other defendants. However,…
Read more →
We keep a close eye on recent legal developments, provide up-to-date advice, and develop strategies that turn new decisions to your advantage.
Contact us →