Admissibility: Should the Enlarged Board Answer at All? The first question in G 1/26 is procedural. The referring Board asks whether a referral is “required” under Article 112(1) EPC where the legal issue arises in the pending case but the Board has not...
Sequence Identity Claims After T 0137/24 The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 0137/24 provides useful guidance on how sequence identity claims are assessed under the EPC, particularly in relation to added matter and sufficiency. Biotech sequence-related claims are...
Summary of T 439/22 This decision represents a further development of the earlier T 439/22 proceedings, which led to the G1/24 referral to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA). The decision of the EBA was reported in our previous article. To recap, granted claim 1...
Background The UPC Court of Appeal’s decision in Otec v. Steros provides an interesting insight into claim interpretation and the constraints on relying on post-filing experimental evidence at the UPC. The case, UPC Court of Appeal decision 579/2025, arose from a...
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...
Recent Comments