by Sean Hughes | May 11, 2026 | EPO
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...
by Alyson Lam | Apr 29, 2026 | EPO
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...
by Sean Hutchinson | Feb 10, 2026 | EPO
Background The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G 1/23 caused a significant change in practice at the European Patent Office (“EPO”), resulting in a product made publicly available before the priority date which the skilled person could not have reproduced now...
by David Eyre | Dec 22, 2025 | EPO
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...
by Alyson Lam | Dec 2, 2025 | EPO
In a further development, T1849/23 has become the first case where clear claim language is broadened by definitions and/or embodiments provided in the description. Background T 1849/23 concerned an appeal filed by Alois Kober GmbH, the Opponent, against the Opposition...
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...
Recent Comments