by Sean Hutchinson | Jul 31, 2025 | EPO
Background As reported in several of our earlier articles, it has long been the practice of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) to require the description of a European patent application to be amended upon allowance of the claims to ensure that the description does...
by Agne Augustinaite | Jun 24, 2025 | EPO
A recent example of this trend can be seen in the recent decision T 1193/23, where ChatGPT’s output was cited during the oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal. In this case, ChatGPT was used to interpret a term in the opposed patent claim to show how ‘a skilled...
by Sean Hutchinson | Jun 18, 2025 | EPO
Headnote Summary In case G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (“EPO”) had been asked to answer the following questions: “Question 1 Is Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69...
by Chloe Sullivan | Jun 17, 2025 | US & International
The Federal Circuit held that, although the defendant (Ingenico) had previously challenged IOENGINE’s patents in IPRs, they were not precluded from relying on product prior art and printed publications related thereto to prove the claimed invention was known or used...
by David Eyre | Jun 10, 2025 | UPC
The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new. Thus, a question of ongoing interest is to what extent the UPC will follow the jurisprudence of the European Patent Office (EPO) and/or one of the UPC member states was not fully known. The...
Recent Comments