This notice is to inform you about how WP Thompson uses and protects personal data that you supply to us when using this website.
Privacy Notice
Your privacy is important to us and we are committed to ensuring that your privacy is protected. Should personal data by which you can be identified, (which could be your name, postal or email addresses, telephone or fax numbers) be required when using this website, you can be assured that this information will only be processed in accordance with the basis set out in this privacy notice. We will hold your personal data only so long as it is necessary. For further information about the basis on which personal data will be processed and your rights under the relevant data protection legislation and regulations, please look at our data policy and our cookie policy.
Updates to this privacy notice
WP Thompson may change the basis on which we process personal data for users of this website by updating this notice. You should therefore check this page from time to time to ensure that you are happy with any changes. This page was last updated on 11 May 2018.
Cookies
Cookies are short text files that are downloaded to your computer when you visit our website. Many websites do this as cookies support useful features relating to management and monitoring of the site and its visitors. Further details on cookies and how we use them can be found in our cookie policy.
Links to other websites
Our website may contain links to other websites of interest. However, once you have used these links to leave our site, you should note that we do not have any control over that other website. We cannot therefore be responsible for the protection and privacy of any personal data that you provide whilst visiting such sites and such sites are not governed by this Privacy Notice. You should exercise caution and look at the Privacy Notice applicable to the website in question.
What's happening in IP
See all news25.06.2025
Artificial Intelligence
The European Patent Office (EPO) Boards of Appeal (BoA) have issued an important decision addressing the growing intersection of artificial intelligence and patent law. In T 1193/23, decided on April 15, 2025, the Board established crucial precedent regarding the use of AI-generated content. This decision relates specifically to ChatGPT responses used as evidence of how a person skilled in the art would interpret a technical term in a patent claim.
Full story23.06.2025
Decision Harmonises EPO Practice with
National Courts and Unified Patent Court (UPC)
Recently the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued its relatively short, but for the most part decisive, G 1/24 decision providing authoritative guidance on how the claims should be interpreted to assess patentability under Articles 52 to 57 EPC. This decision reconciles divergent case law of the Boards of Appeal, and we are pleased to observe that the EBoA has committed to harmonising the EPO’s approach to that taken by the downstream national and multinational courts.
The order in the decision sets out the following. The claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC. The description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation.
Full story14.05.2025
WP Thompson was among the winners in SME News Magazine's 2025 UK Legal Awards.
Full story13.02.2025
Can a third party or intervener continue an appeal if the original appellant withdraws? This question was raised in case T 1286/23. Though the final decision of this case is still pending, this article aims to provide a view on the judgement’s implications.
The patent under appeal for T 1286/23 relates to a handheld skin cleanser, European patent 2941163, originally granted to Foreo AB. However, this patent was later opposed by a third party, Beurer GmbH, who challenged the patent’s validity. Beurer asserted that the patent was invalid on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of patentability such as added matter, novelty and inventive step.
Full storySeen enough?
Enquire online
Thank you.
We will respond to you as quickly as we can.
Contact one of our offices
Speak to someone specific
Join our mailing list
Thank you.