Third Party Observations at the EPO
This article will focus on the filing of third party observations before the European Patent Office (EPO) and include some insights based on our experience of the use of third party observations.
Services
Our services are centred around intellectual property that can be registered. We protect innovation, design, and branding across all sectors of industry, and at all stages in the supply chain.
For each IP right we offer services covering strategic advice, pre-registration searches, registrations and renewals, oppositions and dispute resolution. We handle work throughout the world, working with local colleagues in over 100 countries.
Sectors
Our attorneys specialise in one or more sectors of industry, which enables them to provide quality advice with a commercial focus.
Our patent specialists have detailed understanding of the background technology, which ensures that your patent applications are prepared with the correct scope, reducing the likelihood of challenges from third parties and objections from the patent office.
They also advise whether other forms of protection would be more appropriate. Our brand specialists work with brand managers for leading brands and their advice is commercially focussed making sure that you get the best value from your budget.
Sectors
This article will focus on the filing of third party observations before the European Patent Office (EPO) and include some insights based on our experience of the use of third party observations.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s (EBA) ʺPlausibilityʺ decision (G 2/21) was issued on 23 March 2023 just 4-months after the hearing which took place on 24 November 2022.
Patents relating to artificial intelligence or machine learning are currently in the spotlight and have a strong increase in the number of thereon filed patent applications, even though there are often high hurdles to overcome before granting them. Reason enough to take a closer look at a current case of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht – BpatG) regarding an appeal in patent examination proceedings of a patent application dealing with trained artificial neural networks.
During EPO oppositions there is a need to be clear about the differences between evidence, facts, objections and arguments in proceedings before the EPO and the EPO Boards of Appeal.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly an important tool in industry. Not just in computer science but in almost all fields of industry. And where an AI innovation provides a benefit to users, many would like to protect it with a patent. The European Patent Office (EPO) recognises this. In 2017 the EPO published a study on the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ that identified AI as a key enabling technology. As we reported previously, the EPO has held a conference discussing the patentability of AI. And the EPO has recently announced that their Berlin branch is to become a centre of expertise in AI. So it is worth looking at how AI inventions can be patented in Europe.
We have just finished watching the oral proceedings before the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on case G1/19 concerning the patentability of computer simulations. We were not alone – some 1,600 people signed up to watch today’s oral proceedings by live stream. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) no decision was announced during the proceedings. However, we did get to hear some of the EBA’s thoughts on the issues.
On 24th June 2020 the UK Supreme Court handed down their judgement addressing the question of breadth of claim and sufficiency. Although the decision is well written, its background is in biotechnology which is likely to dissuade a lot of people from reading it and/or understanding its broader implications. So with this in mind, here’s my attempt to explain Regeneron v Kymab sufficiency using … TELEPORTATION.
The recent decision by a Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office (EPO) has provided some important guidance to the patent world on private and confidential input documents submitted as part of the process of developing a new technical standard. Specifically the decision addresses whether these documents form part of the state of the art for assessing a patent’s novelty and inventive step.
Register for notifications
Enter your email address here to receive our monthly bulletin of IP news and developments.
"*" indicates required fields