At the EPO, it is perfectly possible for a therapeutic invention to survive without clinical data. The recent decision in T 1601/22 confirmed this sometimes surprisingly low bar for sufficiency in Europe for therapeutic invention.
G 1/23 establishes that products made available to the public are prior art in Europe, regardless of reproducibility. While this simplifies novelty, focusing strictly on disclosure dates, it complicates inventive step assessments. Notably, T 1719/21 questions whether these non-reproducible products can serve as the “closest prior art” in the EPO’s problem-solution approach.
We are delighted to announce that Evolve’s Claudia Greaves, has recently passed the CIPA Advanced Patent Paralegal Course (APPC). Building on her six years of patent law experience, Claudia completed intensive modules that deepen her expertise in critical areas of IP management:
The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Gaining in-depth understanding of both the International Phase…
The recent decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Seagen v. Daiichi Sankyo overruled the jury decision in the District Court to find an ADC linker platform patent invalid for both lack of written description and enablement.
We are now many years on from the pandemic conditions that initially led to the introduction of oral proceedings by video conferencing for Board of Appeal cases. But what happened to the “Gold Standard” of in-person proceedings promised by the EBA in G 1/21?
The global litigation saga involving Amgen’s PCSK9 antibodies has long served as a high-stakes test case for jurisdictional approaches to broad, functionally defined antibody claims. Following the US Supreme Court’s landmark finding of lack of enablement in Amgen v Sanofi, and the UPC Munich Central Division’s initial revocation of the equivalent European patent, all eyes…
The law in the pharma sector field is also constantly evolving. Understanding the case law trends when drafting, prosecuting and defending these cases is therefore paramount. In our second post on EPO pharma case law trends in 2025 (see Evolve Insights), we review the most impactful decisions of the year relating to clinical-stage inventions.
The science of biologics is rapidly progressing, with the development of ever more complex protein structures, incorporation of molecules into cell therapies and the increasing use of AI-assisted design and in silico modelling. Patent law must respond to these new challenges. What better time to take a look at the trends from the EPO case…
In T 0878/23, the Board of Appeal ruled that mutually exclusive ranges in dependent claims constitute fatal insufficiency rather than a mere lack of clarity. This decision underscores the “repercussive effect” of claim dependencies, warning that internal contradictions can make an invention technically impossible to perform.
This significant decision is the first from the Boards of Appeal to apply G 1/24 to the use of information from the description to broaden otherwise clear claim language.
Therapeutic inventions are generally not considered sufficiently disclosed absent supporting data. The recent decision in T 0883/23 found that this applies both at the priority date and the filing date of the patent.
How early is too early to file a biotech patent? EPO decision T 0709/23 provides a costly answer, demonstrating the fatal risks of claiming a broad therapeutic use before the link between structure, function, and actual effect is truly understood.
