Background The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G 1/23 caused a significant change in practice at the European Patent Office (“EPO”), resulting in a product made publicly available before the priority date which the skilled person could not have reproduced now...
Background Under G 1/92, a product on the market was not considered “available” as prior art under Article 54(2) EPC if the skilled person could not reproduce it without undue burden. This created a peculiar legal fiction: a product could be purchased yet legally...
In a further development, T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description. Background T 1849/23 concerned an appeal filed by Alois Kober GmbH, the Opponent, against the Opposition...
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...
Recent Comments