The cell therapy landscape is at a pivotal moment. There is a considerable pressure within the industry to solve the manufacturing and logistical challenges that have defined the first generation of cell therapies.
A new ruling in Agfa v Gucci reveals a split between the UPC and the EPO on claim interpretation, with the UPC using a patent’s own ‘lexicon’ to narrow a claim, a decision with major implications for patent holders in Europe.
While G1/24 mandates consulting the description, T 0070/23 is a crucial reminder of its limits. The case shows how the Board of Appeal refused to let a description definition override the clear technical meaning of a product claim.
Your biotech invention works, but can you prove it’s better? A recent EPO ruling on extracellular vesicles (T 0827/23) shows why the lack of comparative data can be fatal for a patent.
At last, the wait is over. After years of conflicting case law and mounting frustration for practitioners, the Enlarged Board of Appeal is set to rule on the controversial issue of description amendments in G1/25. But will the decision actually bring clarity?
The latest decision from the EPO to apply the landmark decision in G1/24 on claim interpretation finds that description definitions should not override clear claim lanaguge.
Inventions may be defined in a patent as product, a process, or a product defined by the process that it is made. The choice of patent claim format you choose to define the invention can be highly influential to validity and enforcement later on.
In cell therapy the industry mantra is that the product is the process. However, this case illustrates that the best patent protection for a cell therapy is derived from the product.
Is your product prior art if you disclose it before you file your patent, but without disclosing how it is made or what it is made from? The EBA answers “yes”.
