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.