This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have been hailed as potentially revolutionary for the legal industry. Lord Justice Birss himself recently made headlines for praising the usefulness of ChatGPT for writing court judgments. LLMs are undeniably a major technological advance with the potential to make a significant…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. G 2/21 arose from a case in the biotech field. The referring decision and much of the surrounding commentary to G 2/21 also focused on the terminology of…
In keeping with the so-called media “silly season” of late summer, we thought we would check-in on the AI inventor debate. We have been sceptical about Dr Thaler and his purported inventing machine, DABUS, for some time. A recent EPO Examining Division office action appears to share similar concerns.
While the EPO distinguishes between plausibility for sufficiency and plausibility for inventive step, the UK’s Court of Appeal in Sandoz v BMS blurs these lines. We look into the Court’s controversial decision, examining how Lord Justice Arnold’s interpretation of the G 2/21 decision may lead to a departure from established EPO case law on sufficiency.…
There has been a new referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA). This first referral of 2023 seeks clarification on the enablement test for prior use of a product.
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The US Supreme Court recently ruled in the high profile Amgen versus Sanofi patent dispute. Agreeing with the Federal Circuit (No. 20-1074, Fed. Cir. 2021), the Supreme Court found Amgen’s function and epitope defined PCSK9 antibody patents to lack enablement (Amgen Inc v Sanofi, No. 21-757). The US…
As highlighted in this recent case, the patent case law in Europe and the US diverges on the question of how routine it is to find new antibodies for a known target.
When it comes to interpreting patent claims, the European Patent Office is sending mixed signals. A new decision, T 1924/20, adds fuel to the fire, making a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal more necessary than ever.
Plausibility is not a new requirement for patentability, nor is it a higher bar than sufficiency. It is simply the EPO’s acknowledgment that some inventions—from cancer therapies to broad chemical ranges—face a greater level of initial scepticism. Overcoming that scepticism isn’t a new test; it’s the very essence of demonstrating sufficiency under Article 83 EPC.…
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…
