New referral to EPO over hidden internal structure or composition in prior art

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

New referral to EPO over hidden internal structure or composition in prior art

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
molecules-3713741.jpg

Edward Farrington of Inspicos reports that guidance is being sought from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal three decades after a decision on the analysis of complex products

Patentees and patent applicants before the EPO are occasionally faced with prior art – for example, products which have been put on the market – the internal structure or composition of which is not clear without further investigation. In mechanical fields, such products might be devices or apparatuses which have to be disassembled or broken up to determine the contents. In the chemical field, such products might be polymers or similar chemical compositions, which are difficult or impossible to analyse.

Enlarged Board decision G 1/92 (OJ EPO May 1993) considered what “hidden properties” such products actually disclosed. Decision G 1/92 found that “[t]he chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person… Where it is possible for the skilled person to discover the composition or the internal structure of the product and to reproduce it without undue burden, then both the product and its composition or internal structure become state of the art.”

Although decision G 1/92 is regularly relied upon by parties before the EPO, it did not clearly explain the meaning of the phrases “reproduce without undue burden”, “available to the public”, and “can be analysed”. Divergent case law has developed since G 1/92: some decisions requiring a high level of certainty when analysing hidden properties, others requiring a less complete analysis, and still other decisions excluding such disclosures from the state of the art altogether.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has therefore been asked to clarify some of the issues remaining after G 1/92 in a new referral, G 1/23.

In particular, the EBA will consider whether a marketed product can be excluded from the prior art if its composition or internal structure cannot be analysed. It will also consider whether technical information about a marketed product is state of the art, regardless of whether the composition or internal structure of the product can be analysed. The EBA is also being asked to clarify which criteria apply in determining whether the composition or internal structure of a product could be analysed and reproduced without undue burden.

It is hoped that decision G 1/23 will provide guidance as to which level complex products such as polymers must be analysed if they are to be considered state of the art.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Monetisation is standing at the forefront of patent development, and one firm says AI is increasingly being deployed
Data centres are being built across the US, prompting patent disputes, but Texas’s thriving tech industry and patent-ready courts make the state particularly ‘ripe’ for litigation
Carpmaels & Ransford is set to bolster its UK attorney team with the appointment of Simmons & Simmons’s head of IP in the UK
Updates on Nokia’s licensing strides and a surge in patent activity around battery recycling in Australia were also among the top talking points
To mark International Day Against Child Labour, Matteo Amerio at Corsearch says the people inside businesses who can identify counterfeiting risks must be given the tools and authority to act
With genuine equity at IP firms becoming rarer, securing partnership is harder than ever, but increased transparency is also making climbing the ladder more predictable
Yossi Sivan explains how Israeli judgment is a pro-brand owner departure from the norm and why it sends a strong message that corporate structures are not always a shield
Halim Shehadeh, group CEO of IP firm CWB, says that in the rush to discuss what AI can do, IP firms are overlooking the more important question of whether they are ready
Caitlin Heard, who formally joined the firm from CMS last month, says she is excited by the ‘energy’ of the London office
Ranjna Mehta-Dutt, who moved to Chadha & Chadha after 25 years at Remfry & Sagar, says the firm plans to expand its life sciences practice through targeted recruitment and dedicated teams for bigger clients
Gift this article