EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal addresses the notion of plausibility
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Expert AnalysisLocal Insights

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal addresses the notion of plausibility

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
folders-7382940.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos explains a ruling on the acceptance of evidence that is made public after the filing of an application to prove a technical effect

In its most recent decision, G 2/21 of March 23 2023, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO considered fundamental questions in relation to the assessment of non-obviousness, notably on the principle of free evaluation of evidence and the notion of plausibility.

For the assessment of non-obviousness, the EPO generally applies the so-called problem-solution approach, in the context of which the technical effect brought about by the decisive novel feature(s) of the claim in question is to be defined. Often, when arguing in support of an inventive step, applicants for, or proprietors of, European patents attempt to rely on a technical effect which is not disclosed in the application as filed, but which may be apparent on the basis of post-published evidence; i.e., evidence published after the filing date.

According to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, such evidence may not be disregarded for the sole reason that it was not available to the public before the filing date. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal expressed in its decision that it is decisive what the skilled person would understand at the filing date from the application as being the technical teaching of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the technical effect relied upon in relation to non-obviousness must be encompassed by that technical teaching.

Thus, according to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, evidence filed to prove a technical effect of the claimed subject matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence had not been public before the filing date and was filed after that date. Also, a patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for an inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge 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.

G 2/21 underlines the necessity for applicants to include a discussion of the technical effects of the invention, and possibly data supporting such effects, in their applications from the outset.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Daniel Zohny, former head of IP at world football governing body FIFA, has joined Abion as its global head of brand protection
Lawyers explain how Colombia’s willingness to grant preliminary injunctions and a looming compulsory licence have affected their firms’ workloads
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Former Jenner & Block litigators say they plan to capitalise on a ‘huge uptick’ in life sciences work after joining Fish & Richardson’s newly formed life sciences industry team
Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal of Anand & Anand explain how they helped Swiss pharma company Vifor secure a landmark win against generic companies in India
Malisheia Douglas, who spent six years at Eaton Corporation, said she was attracted by the firm's global footprint
The European Parliament has voted in favour of overhauling the SEP framework, a proposal that has sparked deep division among patent owners and implementers
Daniel Poh talks about his journey to becoming managing partner and how firms can win new business from Chinese companies
Missing a deadline can have serious consequences but law firms should consider being lenient to those responsible
Gift this article