Albert – Construe is the latest addition to Evolve’s proprietary AI toolkit. It construes a set of claims, sets out with supporting evidence what each unclear term means, highlights any inconsistencies caused by other disclosures within an application, and flags where amendments may have changed the scope of a claim term.
G 1/24 requires that the description must always be “consulted” to interpret a claim. The question remains whether a definition in the description can override an otherwise clear meaning in the claims. In T 0715/24, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) sought to persuade the Board of Appeal that a negative feature, read together with a paragraph of…
We are proud to announce that Evolve IP has been ranked in the 2026 publication of the IAM Patent 1000: United Kingdom – England and Wales. This year’s guide highlights our deep technical expertise in life sciences and our practical, strategic business focus.
Congratulations to our patent attorneys, Steven Gurney who is ranked Silver and Rose Hughes who is…
We are delighted to announce that Evolve IP has been recognised in the 2026 IP STARS rankings. This distinction reflects our team’s ongoing dedication to exceptional intellectual property support, featuring key individual accolades for our patent attorneys.
Steven Gurney has been recognised as a Patent Star. This specific ranking is awarded to senior practitioners who demonstrate proven excellence in…
Evolve Intellectual property is delighted to once again be recognised in the 2026 edition of Legal 500 for our growing specialised life science IP Practice in Cambridge, UK.
The publication highlights Steven Gurney (founder and European, UK, and Australian patent attorney) for his work protecting key biopharmaceutical assets and for his focus on complex prosecution…
Following the release of G1/25, questions have been circling as to what the decision means for the pending referral in G 1/26 and what the consequences (good or bad) are for applicants and patentees.
As patent attorneys, we should all know by now not to put client confidential information to a non-enterprise version of an LLM. However, as the capabilities of AI tools become more complex, so too does the necessity of understanding what exactly they are doing and where our data goes, beyond the simple prompt.
The loss of market share we are already seeing for on-market cell therapy products is a result of in-class competitors for the same target and indication from rival innovator companies, not copycat products with identical CAR sequences.
G 1/25, issued today, holds that the description must be adapted only where an “inconsistency” between the claims and description causes non-compliance with another requirement of the EPC.
When do we need a freedom to operate opinion for our cell therapy product?
Only once the product is finalised and heading into the clinic. A full opinion on a construct, a formulation and a process that are all still moving will be out of date before it is delivered, so the right moment is…
We now have confirmation of a new referral to the EBA on claim interpretation (G1/26). As previously hinted, The Board of Appeal in T 0873/24 has decided to refer questions on the application of G1/24 to the assessment of added matter.
Whenever we write about AI, responses have started to move away from talk about hallucination, confidentiality or quality. The new concern is one of economics, i.e. will the whole AI thing just become too expensive and are we putting ourselves at risk by outsourcing to AI.
