In a timely reminder of the European Patent Office’s stringent approach, the Board of Appeal recently revoked a patent for added matter due to nothing more than two missing commas in a claim.
Sitting in recent project meetings listening to the clinical team discuss possible signals from an oncology clinical trial, I was struck by the disconnect between the real life complexity and uncertainty versus the view taken by the EPO (and other patent offices) that the existence of a clinical trial protocol can give the skilled person…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The EPO Board of Appeal has published its full decision on the question of whether a machine can be an inventor (J 8/20). The Board of Appeal had previously announced its decision to refuse two European patent applications naming an algorithm (“DABUS”) as the sole inventor…
While US case law signals the “death” of the broad antibody epitope claim, recent European decisions suggest this patent format is still very much alive at the EPO.
The timing of a patent filing is critical to the patent’s validity. The earlier a patent is filed, the lower the risk of disclosures before the priority date destroying novelty and inventive step. Yet, the later a patent application is filed, the more time there is to obtain data and satisfy the requirement that the…
It is not only the choice of words that matter in patent claim interpretation. As the recent decision in T 1127/16 shows, grammar can be similarly important.
The EPO’s strict patent amendment rules, particularly for combining features from “convergent lists,” were recently clarified by a Board of Appeal decision (T 1621/16). This decision impacts both amendment support and the novelty assessment of selection inventions.
There are important differences in the types of patent protection available for medical devices versus pharmaceuticals, but what happens if your product straddles the boundary between device and drug?
