When the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G 2/21 (the “plausibility” referral), many were left wondering what the requirements were for a patent applicant/proprietor to be able to rely on post-filed evidence in support of inventive step. However,...
Our Headnote It seems that the era of “plausibility” is over, and there may now be little, if any, consideration given to whether the technical effect was plausible / not implausible in view of the application as filed. Instead, emphasis is now placed on the “broadest...
The case has now been remitted to the ED after it was found by the Board that several substantial procedural violations were committed. Below is our timeline of the examination procedure and it is safe to say that, after considering the facts, we are siding with the...
Change in acceleration practice Recent changes to EPO opposition acceleration practice, published earlier this month, further expand the integration of EPO oppositions with post grant actions in court, whether at the Unified Patent Court or in a national court....
Furthermore, this Appeal Board is the same Board that presided over T1989/18, and issued the first Board of Appeal decision to find a lack of legal basis for requiring amendments to the description. Background to Appeal T0056/21 Prior to issuing the Notes of...
Introduction to the Decision On 10 October 2023, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) published its decision in combined referrals G 1/22 and G 2/22: “Entitlement to Priority”. The referrals arose in cases T2719/19 and T1513/17. While...
Recent Comments