In a judgment handed down on 1 March 2019 Mr Justice Arnold has referred the following question to the CJEU

It is hard to avoid the AI revolution that is taking place around us. Indeed, in a lot of areas this revolution is already mature.

The EPO has decided to abolish the option to waive the right to a further communication under Rule 71(3) EPC (notice of allowance) when filing amendments/corrections in response to an initial communication...

Further to a previous announcement that the UK government would not be seeking involvement in the UP/UPC system, the UK today announced its official withdrawal from the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has issued further guidance on the effect of Brexit on IP.

There is a growing awareness of IP in our society, and the potential value of an IP portfolio is gaining more and more attention. However, misconceptions abound.

On Friday 15 March 2019 the World Intellectual Property Organization released its UDRP statistics for the 2018 calendar year.

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought STEM out of the lab and into the wider public domain in a way that is relevant to us all.

The recent Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G1/22 and G2/22 on priority entitlement provide a good opportunity to review this complex issue.

The EPO's Administrative Council approved amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) at its 160th meeting on 26 and 27 June 2019 (see here).

Under new US legislation, a "Big Purple Tomato" is one step closer to the supermarket shelves. Will it seed enthusiasm for genetically engineered food around the world...

This webinar explores the complex landscape of patent applications for microorganisms and specific strains, examining when biological deposits are necessary and how they impact patent strategy. Attendees will learn practical approaches to drafting applications that support both deposited strain claims and broader microorganism claims, while understanding the scope of protection and potential infringement scenarios.

This webinar examines how the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/19 and the UK Supreme Court's Emotional Perception judgment have reshaped patent examination practices at the EPO and UK IPO, with particular focus on recent appeal decisions and their implications for computer-implemented inventions. The session explores how these landmark rulings have intensified scrutiny of technical character requirements across claim scope and aligned UK practice more closely with EPO standards.

The Board of Appeal in T 697/22 has referred questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) concerning whether the description should be amended to address any inconsistencies with the claims.

In our earlier news item concerning G2/24, we reported that the Board of Appeal in T1286/23 had referred the following questions to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding the status...

Added matter remains one of the most challenging and unforgiving aspects of European prosecution and post-grant actions.

The Board of Appeal in T697/22 referred questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal regarding whether the description should be amended to address any inconsistencies with the claims.

The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court has clarified the standard for implicit novelty in patent disputes, aligning its approach with established EPO practice by requiring that unstated features follow 'inevitably and without any reasonable doubt' from prior art. In SharkNinja v SEB, the Court refused provisional measures after finding a cooking appliance patent more likely invalid than valid, applying a novelty test that closely mirrors European Patent Office guidelines...

Almost six months have passed since the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its written decision in G 2/21 concerning plausibility in the context of inventive step.

The European Patent Office has issued guidance on legal remedies available to parties affected by the July 2026 earthquake in Japan. Understanding these exceptional occurrence provisions under Rule 134(5) EPC and related PCT safeguards could prove critical for maintaining patent rights when natural disasters disrupt filing deadlines.