The comments space for the last IPKat article on claim interpretation/description amendments appears to have maxed out. Sorry everyone, but maybe it’s for the best. However, fear not, we now have a new decision to restart the debate!
A primary objective of a pharmaceutical patent is to provide robust protection for the drug product itself. Defining a cell therapy product represents a challenge in this respect, given their inherent complexity, heterogeneity and instability.
The world of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPC) has yet another referral to the CJEU on Article 3(d). The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) asks if the strict interpretation of Article 3(d) established by CJEU in Santen applies when the earlier marketing authorisation relates to a human medicine but the SPC is sought for a veterinary…
The patent in T 1555/23 is impressively broad. The claims covered a medical use invention comprising treating the side effects of CAR-T cell therapy using the now industry-standard class of cytokine inhibitor. The claim was not limited to any particular CAR-T cell therapy, target, type of cancer or specific inhibitor.
If you want to start an argument amongst European patent attorneys, just mention description amendments. As the comments on this and other blogs attest, adaptation of the description is a highly divisive issue and the debate can get decidedly heated (with our US colleagues looking on with bemusement).
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.
