23.08.2024
The EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal has now issued its preliminary (and non-binding) opinion on G 1/23. This referral (from the Technical Board of Appeal in T 438/19) seeks to clarify whether a commercially available product, with an undisclosed composition or internal structure, must be analysable and reproducible by the skilled person in order to constitute prior art under Article 54(2) EPC.
Thank you
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”.
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.
02.05.2025
The Effect of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on Opposition Proceedings at the European Patent Office (EPO)The introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has brought significant changes to the European patent landscape. This article, written by Nathaniel Taylor (of Keltie's Opposition and Appeals team), takes a closer look at the impact of the UPC on opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office (EPO). The article draws on a full year's worth of opposition data - available as of 1 April 2025 - for European patents granted since the Unitary Patent system began (i.e., European patents granted between 1 June 2023 and 1 June 2024). The analysis explores overall trends, technology-specific patterns, and the strategic motives behind relative opposition rates.
04.11.2024
T 56/21 – A missed opportunity for providing legal certainty on adapting the description at the EPOIt is typically a requirement at the EPO to amend the description for conformity with the allowable claims before grant of a patent; however, there have been a number of diverging decisions on the matter. The latest decision finds that there is no legal basis for enforcing this requirement, which might suggest that it will no longer be necessary to adapt the description. However, there are other decisions which support the requirement to adapt the description. In view of this, and because the Board of Appeal in this case opted not to involve the highest authority at the EPO in order to clarify the situation, it is unclear as to whether or not the requirement to adapt the description will remain.
Thank you
