PHARMACEUTICAL IP

Patent law

Sector insights...

Non-reproducible products can be the closest prior art (T 1719/21)

G 1/23 establishes that products made available to the public are prior art in Europe, regardless of reproducibility. While this simplifies novelty, focusing strictly on disclosure dates, it complicates inventive step assessments. Notably, T 1719/21 questions whether these non-reproducible products can serve as the “closest prior art” in the EPO’s problem-solution approach.

Evolve’s Claudia Greaves earns CIPA Advanced Patent Paralegal Qualification

We are delighted to announce that Evolve’s Claudia Greaves, has recently passed the CIPA Advanced Patent Paralegal Course (APPC). Building on her six years of patent law experience, Claudia completed intensive modules that deepen her expertise in critical areas of IP management: The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Gaining in-depth understanding of both the International Phase…

ViCo oral proceedings: Whatever happened to the in-person “Gold-Standard”?

We are now many years on from the pandemic conditions that initially led to the introduction of oral proceedings by video conferencing for Board of Appeal cases. But what happened to the “Gold Standard” of in-person proceedings promised by the EBA in G 1/21? 

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. 

EPO pharma case law trends 2025: Antibodies and biologics

The science of biologics is rapidly progressing, with the development of ever more complex protein structures, incorporation of molecules into cell therapies and the increasing use of AI-assisted design and in silico modelling. Patent law must respond to these new challenges. What better time to take a look at the trends from the EPO case…

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.

First use of G 1/24 to broaden clear claim language (T 1849/23)

This significant decision is the first from the Boards of Appeal to apply G 1/24 to the use of information from the description to broaden otherwise clear claim language.

Sufficiency at the priority date: A study protocol is not “the same” as a therapeutic effect invention (T0883/23)

Therapeutic inventions are generally not considered sufficiently disclosed absent supporting data. The recent decision in T 0883/23 found that this applies both at the priority date and the filing date of the patent.

Patentee’s own post-published data undermines the credibility of their broad cat antibody patent (T 0709/23)

How early is too early to file a biotech patent? EPO decision T 0709/23 provides a costly answer, demonstrating the fatal risks of claiming a broad therapeutic use before the link between structure, function, and actual effect is truly understood.

From oil to gemstones: Our shifting understanding of the value of data

The concept of data as oil has been around for a number of years, but does the analogy still hold? In the pharma and biotech industry, there is now a shift away from thinking of data as a bulk commodity of raw material, towards the pursuit of high quality data that can improve the performance…
View more Insights