Hands-on commentary on UPC decisions, key developments in IP law, and news from SONN.
Aug 9, 2026
The Central Division Munich addresses the objective determination of inventive step and warns against impermissible hindsight. A realistic starting point is generally a prior art disclosure in its entirety. In the…
Read more →Aug 1, 2026
The Local Chamber Vienna clarifies the rules for interpreting printed state of the art in comparison with the advertised physical product. An advertising brochure is to be evaluated as an independent prior art document…
Read more →Jul 30, 2026
In this decision, the Board of Appeal clarifies the requirements for inventive step when introducing variations from the prior art. If a distinguishing feature does not credibly contribute to solving a technical…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
When drafting patent claims in two-part form, the question of correct delimitation regularly arises. According to Rule 43(1) EPC, the delimitation must be made against the state of the art. However, this does not mean…
Read more →Jun 1, 2026
In this decision, the Board of Appeal addresses the implications of the landmark decision G 1/23 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The Enlarged Board's decision does not exclude the selection of a product that is…
Read more →Oct 20, 2025
According to R 171 and 172 RoP, a party that relies on a fact that is disputed or could be disputed by the other side must specify the evidence. This means that every party filing a claim must compile the documents…
Read more →To assess whether an invention is to be considered obvious in view of the state of the art, the problem-solution approach developed by the EPO should be applied as a priority – as far as possible – in order to increase…
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 →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 →Jul 4, 2022
A disclosure within a prior art document can only be considered to represent a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step if the skilled person would have realistically started from it. An important…
Read more →In the case of cumulative lines of argument that build on each other, a complete presentation of the reasons, as Article 108 EPC and Article 12 RPBA have always demanded, requires the presentation of all facts, which…
Read more →Aug 1, 2018
According to the decision in G 1/92 of the EBA, the chemical composition of a product belongs to the state of the art if the product itself is accessible to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by a person…
Read more →The publication date of a citation prior to the priority date may permissibly be contested by the patent proprietor if there are contradictory indications of the publication date (in the specific case in relation to a…
Read more →Mar 14, 2018
If the opponent asserts a public prior use in the opposition proceedings at a late stage, there are good reasons not to differentiate in the admission decision between whether the opponent has conceded deliberately…
Read more →According to German Patent Law the courts are bound by the grant of a patent by the respective Patent Office. In consequence thereof they cannot hold a patent as null and void: an action for declaration of…
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 →