As a reminder, following grant of a patent to Foreo AB an opposition was filed by Beurer GmbH, and during the pendency of the opposition, Foreo sent a letter to Geske GmbH & Co. KG accusing them of infringment and threatening action. Geske filed an intervention...
Background to the referral The G 1/23 referral came from Board 3.3.03 in the consideration of T 0438/19, an appeal against the decision of an opposition division to reject an opposition against a European patent directed to a material for encapsulating a solar cell...
We reported in our article of June 2025 that the decision of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/24 seemed likely to “force a monumental change in practice at the EPO, whose examiners are very unlikely to now be able to raise objections against the claims of a...
Background As reported in several of our earlier articles, it has long been the practice of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) to require the description of a European patent application to be amended upon allowance of the claims to ensure that the description does...
A recent example of this trend can be seen in the recent decision T 1193/23, where ChatGPT’s output was cited during the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. In this case, ChatGPT was used to interpret a term in the opposed patent claim to show how ‘a skilled...
Headnote Summary In case G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) had been asked to answer the following questions: “Question 1 Is Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69...
Recent Comments