Andrew Silver’s Post

Published my new Patent

It’s that time of the year... The new EPO guidelines for 2024 are coming into force tomorrow. There are a number of new changes, which can be viewed here (https://lnkd.in/e6j_f9M2). Of particular interest to those in the chem/bio field is the submission of additional data after filing to support a technical effect for inventive step assessment, which has been a hot topic in the last year or so in light of decision G2/21. This has been crystallised in the Guidelines under section G-VII 5.2: 'It is also possible to rely on new effects submitted subsequently during the proceedings by the applicant, provided the skilled person, having the common general knowledge at the effective filing date in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention' I look forward to further elucidation from the boards of appeal over the next few years as to the determination of whether an effect is 'encompassed by the technical teaching' and 'embodied by the same originally disclosed invention'.

patent got published after 18 months of submission

🔍 Discover the importance of global patent research tools! Extensive research sheds light on the serious threat posed by the inability to access smaller patent offices 👇 #ip #patents #intellectualproperty Lighthouse IP - The world’s most complete IP-data collection

<!-- .entry-header --> “Has your establishment obtained authorities funding? Is authorities funding behind your patents? Are you licensing patents that have been developed with authorities help? In that case, you actually ought to hearken to this informative webinar. Your rights and financial pursuits could possibly be dramatically impacted by March-In Rights.” Uncover the nuances of March-In Rights in patent legislation by a current presentation by Duane Morris accomplice, Ryan C. Smith, Ph.D. To entry the presentation, observe this hyperlink. <!-- .entry-content --> <!-- .entry-footer -->

Lawyers have the power to change everything.

It's February 29, and being a Thursday, there will be no leap patents this year. The last time a leap patent issued was in 2000, and the next leap patent won't issue until 2028. Read more at https://lnkd.in/e4aRV6xU

Read ipQuants AG Qthena Insights Report on Patent Quality and Examination Efficiency at the EPO. The report provides an objective analysis of the European Patent Office's examination process. Key findings reveal an increased pending workload, reduced examiner workforce, decreased time to decision, diminished communications and opposition outcomes as a quality indicator. Access the report here or download it at this link: https://lnkd.in/dmTSpgx3

An interesting decision from this Technical Board of Appeal. The question of whether the EPO can refuse a patent application if the description is not adapted to the allowable claims won't be referred to the Enlarged Board. This may cause some frustration, as I'm sure many applicants and attorneys would love to see the Enlarged Board reign in examiners who are a bit trigger-happy with making amendments at R71(3) stage. Nonetheless, the decision does appear pro-patentee, since the Technical Board have stated that Article 84 and Rules 42, 43, and 48 EPC do not provide legal basis for requiring such adaptation of the description. So, will we start to see more push-back from applicants against EPO examiners' requests for description amendments?

Let’s see how this plays out over the next couple of years before we jump to any conclusions!