PHARMACEUTICAL IP

Biotechnology

The biotech landscape demands an adaptable IP strategy that can respond to rapid scientific advances and evolving legal frameworks. At Evolve, we specialise in crafting robust IP strategies for biotech innovations, from novel therapeutic modalities to breakthrough research tools.

We understand the unique challenges biotech companies face, including platform protection considerations, competitive landscapes, and investor expectations. Our expertise helps you navigate complex IP decisions while building value-creating patent portfolios tailored to your specific technology and commercial objectives.

Sector insights...

EPO pharma case law trends 2025: Clinical inventions

The law in the pharma sector field is also constantly evolving. Understanding the case law trends when drafting, prosecuting and defending these cases is therefore paramount. In our second post on EPO pharma case law trends in 2025 (see Evolve Insights), we review the most impactful decisions of the year relating to clinical-stage inventions. 

Insufficiency resulting from mutually exclusive definitions: The repercussive effect of dependent claims (T 0878/23)

In T 0878/23, the Board of Appeal ruled that mutually exclusive ranges in dependent claims constitute fatal insufficiency rather than a mere lack of clarity. This decision underscores the “repercussive effect” of claim dependencies, warning that internal contradictions can make an invention technically impossible to perform.

Evolve AI: Building AI tools for IP that are expert-led and pharma-specific

We believe that the value of AI for our profession lies in developing highly specialised tools that build upon and incorporate domain-specific attorney expertise.

An “immunogenic composition” is not a vaccine (T 0070/23)

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.

The reproducibility challenge for advanced therapies (T 0827/23)

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.

How to read a biotech patent

Learn how to quickly search for and extract key information from biotech patent documents.

Is it time for patent offices to enter the bioinformatic age?

In a world in which incalculable amounts of sophisticated sequence data is freely available, are the clunky processes necessary to input patent sequence data really fit-for-purpose?

Alnylam v. Moderna and the judicious use of definitions: The European perspective

When drafting a patent, seemingly innocuous “boilerplate” definitions in the description can drastically narrow your claims, as demonstrated by the Alnylam v Moderna case in the US, highlighting the critical need for precise language to protect your invention.

Freedom to operate versus patentability in biotech: What the difference is and why it matters

Discover the critical difference between patentability and freedom to operate in biotech, and why true innovation is your best strategy for navigating the complex intellectual property landscape.

All to play for in CRISPR “first-to-invent” US patent battle as Federal Circuit instructs PTAB to reconsider (Regents v. Broad Institute, Nos. 22-1594, 22-1653)

Navigating the complex CRISPR patent landscape remains a challenge. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Regents v. Broad Institute is another in the ongoing battle between the inventors of CRISPR.
View more Insights