Remove 2023 Remove Invention Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

The UPC's first decision on infringement by equivalence (Plant-e v Bioo, UPC_CFI_239/2023)

The IPKat

In Plant-e v Bioo the UPC provided its first decision addressing the doctrine of equivalents in patent infringement proceedings ( UPC_CFI_239/2023 ). Case details: Plant-based fuel cells The dispute in UPC_CFI_239/2023 concerned EP2137782 , owned by Plant-e Knowledge B.V.

article thumbnail

Impact of AI on Global IP Systems

IIPRD

AI and the Global IP System We need a worldwide intellectual property (IP) structure that encourages innovation and invention if we are to benefit from generative AI. Specifically, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have opened up new avenues for invention that only minimally entail human intervention.

IP 98
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

G 2/21: Did the invention as originally disclosed embody the technical effect?

The IPKat

In order to understand whether a purported technical effect may be relied on for inventive step, the EBA concludes that the substantive question remains what would the skilled person understand from the application as filed? For the EBA, the substantive question at the heart of G 2/21 is a familiar one that needs no reference to plausibility.

Invention 131
article thumbnail

Shaping the Future of Patent Law: The Amgen v. Sanofi Decision and Bite-Sized Monopolies

Patently-O

The Court held that Amgen’s patent claims were invalid due to a lack of enablement, as they failed to provide adequate guidance for making and using the claimed antibodies. — (2023) ( 21-757_k5g1 ). In other words, the specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims.

article thumbnail

Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

Intellectual Property Law Blog

16, 2023) , the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the claims in the challenged patents unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the asserted prior art. In Incept v. Palette Life Sciences 21-2063, 21-2065 (Fed.

article thumbnail

The IPKat EPO Boards of Appeal Year in Review 2023

The IPKat

Another source of confusion is the divergent approaches of the UK courts and the EPO with respect to the test for the evidence standard in sufficiency and inventive step analysis. Plausibility demystified - a review of EPO case law before G 2/21 G 2/21: Is the technical effect embodied by the invention as originally disclosed?

Invention 112
article thumbnail

The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)

The IPKat

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decision in G 2/21 related to the evidence requirement for a purported technical effect relied on for inventive step. The Board of Appeal in T 2803/18 , in particular, highlights how G 2/21 may be relevant to inventions in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning.