how-to-patent-in-europe-epo Definition Related Topics 
The IPKat
DECEMBER 20, 2023
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.
The IPKat
MAY 19, 2024
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. Comments are due by 29 June 2024.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The IPKat
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
Antibodies may be defined in a patent claim by their amino acid sequence or by the sequence of the target (epitope) to which the antibody binds. Historically, epitope claims were relatively common in the field of antibody patents, as they represented a way of broadly protecting any antibody that bound the same epitope.
The IPKat
OCTOBER 26, 2022
The breadth of the patent claims upheld on appeal may well be astonishing to US readers used to the onerous US sufficiency requirements. In contrast to the US, the decision from the EPO Boards of Appeal is a case study of how functional claim language that wouldn't pass muster in the US, can be used to great effect in Europe.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 24, 2022
As a busy year comes, take the time to settle down with your favourite feline friend, a mince pie and the annual IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal roundup. IPKat has also sifted through the 100s of Boards of Appeal decisions published in 2022, to bring you the most eye-catching and relevant to ongoing EPO practice.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 28, 2021
Following on from our IPKat EBA 2021 Year in Review , here is some more festive holiday reading on some of the important decisions to come out of the EPO Boards of Appeal this year. As the year draws to the close, the EPO has announced the Legal Boards of Appeal decision on whether an AI can be named as an inventor (J 8/20 and J 9/20).
The IPKat
NOVEMBER 6, 2023
In the recent UK decision Astellas v Teva [2023] EWHC 2571 (Pat) Mr Justice Mellor in the High Court considered sufficiency, inventive step and infringement of Astellas' formulation patent for mirabegron. The decision also deviates from EPO practice on sufficiency and the inventive step of selection inventions.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
109 
Let's personalize your content