Get in touch

Submit

Thank you

G 1/23 vs. G 1/92

 

The preliminary opinion on G 1/23 appears to overturn G 1/92, which had previously concluded that for a product to become prior art, the skilled person must be able to determine the composition of the product and then reproduce it without undue burden. Amongst its reasoning in the preliminary opinion, the Enlarged Board on G 1/23 states that G 1/92 “would directly lead to the result that irreproducible products would effectively cease to exist for the purposes of the EPC. The Enlarged Board is of the opinion that such an extreme result could not have been intended by G 1/92”.   

Preliminary opinion on G 1/23

 

Instead, the preliminary opinion on G 1/23 concludes that a product which is put on the market (and is therefore publicly available) is prior art even if the skilled person is unable to analyse and reproduce its composition. Therefore, whereas currently an Applicant may be able to patent a product which had been on the market before filing by arguing that the product was non-reproducible (e.g. due to secret know-how), this will no longer be possible if the Decision that issues on G 1/23 matches the preliminary opinion.

 

The Enlarged Board has given the EPO President and the parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary opinion by 16 October 2024, after which a final Decision will be issued. This Decision has the potential to impact the commercialisation and IP strategies of innovators in a wide variety of technical fields. We will keep you updated.

 

Continue reading about G 1/23 - Potential changes ahead for what constitutes “state of the art”?
MoreCRISPR patent battle update

06.08.2024

CRISPR patent battle update

Last year, we published an article looking at some of the IP issues raised by CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. One of these issues concerned the battles over the ownership of certain fundamental patents.

MorePatents, plausibility and data: one year on from G 2/21

02.04.2024

Patents, plausibility and data: one year on from G 2/21

On 23 March 2023, the European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) published its decision in case G 2/21, concerning plausibility in patent applications. The decision provided useful guidance on how much data needs to be disclosed in a patent application to overcome objections based on the grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficiency. One year on, we take a look at how the EPO has been applying this standard in the life sciences field.

Get in touch

Submit

Thank you