Remove how-to-patent-in-europe-epo
article thumbnail

USPTO call for comments: Impact of AI on patentability

The IPKat

The USPTO has issued a request for comments regarding the impact of AI on patentability. The USPTO specifically calls for views on how the proliferation of AI could affect evaluations of patentability, including what qualifies as prior art and the capabilities of the person skilled in the art.

Patent 62
article thumbnail

Broad functional claiming at the EPO (T 0835/21)

The IPKat

The ever-present question for IP in certain technical fields is how much data is needed to support a patent application. However, in some cases, the amount of data needed to overcome this doubt to support a patent application may still be surprisingly minimal. Neither the structures or sequences of these examples was provided.

Invention 112
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Unambiguous disclosure without patent profanity (T 2171/21)

The IPKat

US patent attorneys wishing to understand certain peculiarities of European patent drafting need look no further than the recent Board of Appeal decision in T 2171/21. This case is a textbook example of the EPO's strict approach to added matter. Profanity The patent was opposed for added matter.

Patent 109
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court decision in Amgen v Sanofi: The European Perspective

The IPKat

The US Supreme Court recently ruled in the high profile Amgen versus Sanofi patent dispute. 2021 ), the Supreme Court found Amgen's function and epitope defined PCSK9 antibody patents to lack enablement ( Amgen Inc v Sanofi, No. The patents in dispute in Amgen v Sanofi defined a class of antibodies by their function and epitope.

article thumbnail

EPO Board of Appeal maintains functional epitope antibody genus claim (T 1964/18)

The IPKat

Antibodies may be defined in a patent claim by their amino acid sequence, by their target (epitope) and/or their functional characteristics. Despite this, there is a dearth of EPO Boards of Appeal case law on the allowability of epitope and broadly functional language in antibody claims.

Art 130
article thumbnail

Can amending the description to summarize the prior art add matter to the patent application as filed? (T 0471/20)

The IPKat

The EPO Guidelines for Examination require the description of a patent application to summarise the background art ( F-II-4.3 ). This requirement usually manifests with a request from the Examiner for the description to be amended to identify the closest prior art. D8 is a patent relating to a filing unit.

Art 113
article thumbnail

A Relook at Business Methods in light of Madras High Court’s Decision in Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller 

SpicyIP

Deputy Controller , Madras High court rejected the contention that the subject invention was excluded for being business method. The findings of this short judgement have possible significant implications on the jurisprudence regarding 3(k) and business methods in the Patent Act. 3(k) of the Patent Act and thereby excluded.