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

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.

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

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. Comments are due by 29 June 2024.

Patent 62
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 ). It is hard to see how the addition of a simple summary of the prior art could be detrimental to the patentee. The patent as granted ( EP2657138 ) related to a food product handling system (e.g.

Art 113
article thumbnail

The IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal Year in Review 2022

The IPKat

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.

article thumbnail

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

SpicyIP

The findings of this short judgement have possible significant implications on the jurisprudence regarding 3(k) and business methods in the Patent Act. The Controller of Patents and Designs in July which had rejected a patent application for being primarily a claim to business method. extracted in Para 5 of judgement).

article thumbnail

Principals Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse Author Managing IP Article “Coordinating Patent Prosecution in the U.S. and Europe”

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Moritz Ammelburg and Peter Fasse examine the patentability requirements and prosecution schemes in the US and Europe and how applicants can prepare applications that will best serve their needs in both jurisdictions. can significantly complicate the coordination of a global patent strategy. Inventorship.