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...
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...
Recent Comments