by Juliette Boynton | Oct 15, 2025 | EPO
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...
by Carolyn Haywood | Sep 30, 2025 | EPO
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...
by Sean Hutchinson | Sep 16, 2025 | EPO, Uncategorised
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...
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...
by Agne Augustinaite | Jun 24, 2025 | EPO
A recent example of this trend can be seen in the recent decision T 1193/23, where ChatGPT’s output was cited during the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. In this case, ChatGPT was used to interpret a term in the opposed patent claim to show how ‘a skilled...
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...
Recent Comments