EPO clarifies public availability of a black-box disclosure

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

EPO clarifies public availability of a black-box disclosure

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
epo-600-comp.jpg

Peter Koefoed of Inspicos examines an Enlarged Board of Appeal decision on whether the internal structure of a commercially available but undisclosed product can form part of the state of the art

In the recent decision G 1/23, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) clarified the prior art status of a product put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application, where the composition or internal structure of the product could not be determined or reproduced prior to the filing date.

The wording of an earlier EBA opinion (G 1/92) has led to diverging case law interpretations, one of which held that a marketed product that is not reproducible is not state of the art, while another concluded that only the composition/internal structure of the product is not state of the art. The interpretations stem from G 1/92’s focus on a requirement for reproducibility of prior art teachings.

Ultimately, the EBA held that neither interpretation is correct, in a decision issued on July 2 2025.

The board found that the reproducibility requirement establishes a legal fiction as it “contradicts everyday experience”. The EBA also found that both interpretations ignore that the skilled person ultimately relies on the availability of natural products that can be readily acquired but not necessarily reproduced; for instance, the chemical elements.

The board concluded that a product put on the market is not excluded from the state of the art merely because its internal structure or composition cannot be analysed. Moreover, the EBA found that technical information derivable from such a product is also state of the art even if it could not be analysed and reproduced. Put more simply: the product’s composition or internal structure is also state of the art.

The EBA acknowledged that it may be difficult to establish the exact technical teachings derivable from a previously marketed product but regarded this as a “practical legal problem of proof for the lawyer”.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mitesh Patel at Reed Smith outlines why the US Copyright Office and courts have so far dismissed AI authorship and how inventors can protect AI-generated works
Xia Zheng, founder of AFD China, discusses balancing legal work with BD, new approaches to complex challenges, and the dangers of ‘over-optimism’
A dispute involving semiconductor technology and a partner's move from Hoffman Eitle to Hoyng Rokh Monegier were also among the top talking points
A former Freshfields counsel and an ex-IBM counsel, who have joined forces at law firm Caldwell, say clients are increasingly sophisticated in their IP demands
Daniel Raymond, who will serve as head of client relations, tells Managing IP that law firms must offer ‘brave’ opinions if they want to keep winning new business
The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
Gift this article