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

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
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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 US Supreme Court was keen to stress that its reasoning did not alter the law on enablement.

article thumbnail

Book Review: A Practitioner’s Guide to European Patent Law (with a discount code)

The IPKat

This Kat is delighted to review “ A Practitioner’s Guide to European Patent Law: For National Practice and the Unified Patent Court ” (Hart Publishing, 2022, 664 pp.). The book consists of seventeen chapters, mainly on substantive law, but it also addresses certain procedural matters and questions of international private law.

article thumbnail

Patenting Antibodies: The epitope claim is dead, long live the epitope claim

The IPKat

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.

Patent 94
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
article thumbnail

When generating antibodies for a target is more than routine (T 0435/20)

The IPKat

The patent case law in Europe and the US diverges on the question of how routine it is to find new antibodies for a known target. By contrast, the EPO considers it routine for a skilled person to generate antibodies against a known target. contrary to the broad summary of EPO case law summarised above).