by Luke Pettit | Jan 15, 2026 | UPC
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...
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 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...
Recent Comments