In its first-ever revocation order, the Unified Patent Court has deepened the transatlantic divide on biotech patents, confirming that what is patentable in the US may be considered obvious in Europe.
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The cover article of the May 2024 edition of the CIPA Journal proposed a new test for inventive step using AI. The article was inspired by the EPO’s AI assisted search tool, AI-PreSearch. The CIPA journal article proposes to use an AI derived measurement of semantic similarity between the…
According to the USPTO guidance for AI-assisted inventions, AI has the potential to solve some of society’s most difficult challenges. However, in the patent realm, the USPTO also believes that “inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity”. How then are AI-generated inventions to be protected?…
The USPTO has issued a request for comments regarding the impact of AI on patentability. The USPTO specifically calls for views on how the proliferation of AI could affect evaluations of patentability, including what qualifies as prior art and the capabilities of the person skilled in the art.
The European patent at issue in T 1437/21 (EP 2981271) related to the second medical use of a known drug (empagliflozin) in a subpopulation of patients.
In its first ever substantive decision, the UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) in Luxembourg has reversed the preliminary injunction ordered against NanoString by the Munich Local Division in 10x Genomics v NanoString.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has released its written decision in G 2/21 on the question of post-published evidence. In G 2/21, the EBA consciously avoids the rabbit hole of plausibility, dismissing it as a generic catch word that does not amount to a distinctive legal concept.
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
In the US, the principle of file wrapper estoppel is well established. Submissions made in US patent prosecution may be highly influential for claim interpretation post-grant. Additionally, as recently highlighted in K-fee v Nespresso (Case No. 22-2042, Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2023), file wrapper estoppel in the US does not…
The recent Board of Appeal decision in T 1356/21 covered a number of interesting legal points in the field of pharmaceutical patents. The case related to the novelty and inventive step of a second medical use claim.
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
At Evolve we are used to discussing the patentability of second-medical use inventions. But what about non-medical second uses? The recently published Board of Appeal decision T 1385/15 related to the patentability of such a second use. According to case law from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA),…
Does G2/21 allow you to claim a new medical use for a known drug without any supporting data in your application? In T 0258/21, the Board of Appeal provided a decisive, and unsurprising, “no.”
