Schlich Ltd +44(0) 1903 717001 info@schlich.co.uk
  • Schlich China
  • Client Portal
Schlich Ltd
  • Our Firm
  • IP Services
    • Patents
    • EPO Oppositions & Appeals
    • UKIPO Proceedings
    • UPC Proceedings
    • Trade Marks
    • Designs
  • Patent Specialities
    • Life Sciences & Biotech
    • Chemical & Pharmaceutical
    • Mechanical, Engineering and Physics
    • Software, Electronics and Communications
  • Insights
  • Inventors’ Zone
  • Contact
Select Page
New Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: The Description Amendment Saga Goes On!

New Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: The Description Amendment Saga Goes On!

by Sean Hutchinson | Jul 31, 2025 | EPO

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...
EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Much-Anticipated Decision in G 1/24

EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Issues Much-Anticipated Decision in G 1/24

by Sean Hutchinson | Jun 18, 2025 | EPO

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...
Use Claims Can be Method Claims in Disguise, says the EPO

Use Claims Can be Method Claims in Disguise, says the EPO

by Sean Hutchinson | May 20, 2025 | EPO

It is generally accepted in the world of IP that all inventions fall into one of four categories: products, methods, apparatuses (i.e. products for carrying out specific processes), and uses. Thus, when drafting a new patent application, an important first step is to...
When it comes to Post Filed Data, the Earlier the Better – A Brief Reminder Following G 2/21

When it comes to Post Filed Data, the Earlier the Better – A Brief Reminder Following G 2/21

by | Apr 29, 2025 | EPO

Specifically, the closest prior art in this case taught that a higher concentration of a particular component of the composition was advantageous. The Patentee attempted to argue that the claimed composition was inventive over the art on the basis that the same...
Is an Intervener an Opponent or Appellant, or just an Intervener?

Is an Intervener an Opponent or Appellant, or just an Intervener?

by Juliette Boynton | Jan 27, 2025 | EPO

This issue was previously considered by the Enlarged Board in G3/04, who concluded that the Appeal could not be continued. The G3/04 decision notes that the status of an intervener is defined in Article 105 EPC which states:- Any third party may, in accordance with...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Recent Posts

  • Where to Start? Somewhere Realistic or Promising, Says the EPO!
  • Change is Coming to Australia! Patent Term Extension to No Longer be Available for Formulations
  • James Peel Joins Schlich
  • Seagen vs Daiichi Sankyo: A Warning Shot for Broad Biologic Platform Patents in the US
  • UPC Takes EPO Approach when Assessing Patentability of Broad Antibody Claims in Amgen v Sanofi

Recent Comments

    CIPA
    IPReg
    CITMA
    • Instagram

    Services

    • Patents
    • EPO Oppositions & Appeals
    • UKIPO Proceedings
    • UPC Proceedings
    • Trade Marks
    • Designs

    About

    • Our Firm
    • Careers
    • Our People
    • Policies

    Contact

    • Contact
    • Inventors Zone
    © 2025 Schlich, All rights reserved | Built by Molokini
    European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. Schlich Ltd is a UK limited company, registration no. 05238489, address: 9 St Catherine's Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex, BN17 5HS.