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 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 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...
Recent Comments