PHARMACEUTICAL IP

Pharmaceuticals

Evolve is a pharmaceutical specialist IP firm, offering comprehensive intellectual property services built on the experience of our attorneys in both in-house and private practice settings. We provide strategic counsel throughout the innovation lifecycle, from drafting and portfolio management to licensing, due diligence, and contentious matters.

Evolve is built on the deep expertise of our qualified attorneys in the pharmaceutical and biotech sector. With our personalized approach, scientific backgrounds and industry insights, we deliver tailored and pragmatic IP solutions for our pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients.

Sector insights...

Veterinary versus human use under Article 3(d): CJEU asked to revisit Santen

The world of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPC) has yet another referral to the CJEU on Article 3(d). The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) asks if the strict interpretation of Article 3(d) established by CJEU in Santen applies when the earlier marketing authorisation relates to a human medicine but the SPC is sought for a veterinary…

G 1/25 (description amendments) amicus curiae: The battle lines are drawn

If you want to start an argument amongst European patent attorneys, just mention description amendments. As the comments on this and other blogs attest, adaptation of the description is a highly divisive issue and the debate can get decidedly heated (with our US colleagues looking on with bemusement).

Mechanistic insights supporting the sufficiency and inventive step of a therapeutic use (without clinical data) (T 1601/22)

At the EPO, it is perfectly possible for a therapeutic invention to survive without clinical data. The recent decision in T 1601/22 confirmed this sometimes surprisingly low bar for sufficiency in Europe for therapeutic invention.

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. 

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…

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.

Why patents matter: Understanding the importance of IP in the pharma industry

Patents are core to the pharma industry. How does this translate into how the pharma industry thinks about IP?

The morality (and patentability) of inventions derived by immoral means (T 2510/18)

Should patents be granted for inventions born from unethical practices, even if they offer significant societal benefits?
View more Insights