Originally posted on IPKat.
The Board of Appeal decision in T 2543/22 relates to a manufacturing method for preparing a therapeutic peptide. The Board of Appeal found that whilst various methods were known, the skilled person would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying them to produce the specific claimed peptide. The case highlights some…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) first substantive decision on patent validity in DexCom v Abbott (UPC_CFI_230/2023), provides some interesting commentary on how much the description should be taken into account when interpreting the claims. Claim interpretation is the subject of the highly…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The Board of Appeal decision in T 0295/22 tackles the question of whether a new mode of administration of a drug should be considered a new medical use. The Board of Appeal concludes that the current EPO Guidelines for Examination are wrong on this point, and that…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The intersection of AI and pharmaceutical development presents unprecedented opportunities but also raises complex legal questions. Recent developments and successes in AI-drug discovery highlight some of the key IP issues in AI-drug development. Companies are being forced to tackle these issues head-on as the IP…
This post is based on a previous article on IPKat.
The Board of Appeal decision in T 2130/22 considered the inventive step of a pharmaceutical formulation in which the technical effect relied upon for inventive step was also a functional feature of the claim. The decision confirms that when a technical effect is specified as a functional feature…
The Board of Appeal decision in T 0816/22 considered whether post-published phase III clinical trial data showing lack of efficacy can invalidate a second medical use patent that appeared plausible based on the data in the application as filed.
The recent Board of Appeal decision T 0326/22 is yet further confirmation, if any were needed, that functionally-defined antibody claims remain viable at the EPO.
We are delighted to announce that Evolve has joined the ranks of the Legal 500 Intellectual Property firms. The Legal 500 is one of the UK’s leading legal directories, known for its rigorous research methodology and independent analysis of the legal market. As a small boutique IP firm, we are particularly proud of this achievement. …
The USPTO recently issued Guidance on the patentability of AI. In the US, claims directed solely to a “judicial exception”, in the form of an abstract idea, natural phenomena, or law of nature, are not eligible for patent protection (35 U.S.C. 101). However, the case law on subject matter eligibility is infamously difficult to apply.…
