by Sean Hughes | Jun 22, 2026 | EPO
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...
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 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 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