HOFFMANN EITLE Quarterly Newsletter 12/23
出版著作 | 15.12.2023
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
In this issue of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly, we begin by discussing a groundbreaking decision by the UK Patents Court which held that an artificial neural network invention is not inherently unpatentable, opening up a new frontier for AI patenting in the UK. This is followed by an analysis on the landmark decision of the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal in cases G 1/22 and G 2/22 on the formal entitlement to priority, and in the next article we look at divergent decisions of the Boards of Appeal on double patenting at the EPO. The fourth article reports on the first Board of Appeal's decision to apply the new test set out in decision G 2/21 on whether post-published data can be relied on for inventive step. In the final article, we discuss a decision issued by the Milan's Local Division of the UPC, which quickly granted two applications for preservation of evidence under the UPCA. We hope that you will find this issue of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly informative and, as always, we welcome your feedback.
Nicolas Douxchamps
Editor-in-chief of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly
Partner - Belgian and European Patent Attorney
HE Electrical Engineering & Digital Technologies Practice Group
AI in the UK - Not Coded by a Human, No Problem
British Patents Court deems artificial neural network invention as inherently not excluded from patentability, opens up new frontier in patenting AI in the UK.
G1/22 and G2/22: The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal Decision on the Entitlement to Priority
The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) in the cases G1/22 and G2/22 concerns the right to claim priority from an earlier application under Art. 87(1) EPC. It specifically addresses the aspect of who is entitled to claim priority for its subsequent application, i.e. it regards the so-called "formal priority".
Double Trouble: Double Patenting at the EPO
Before the European Patent Office (EPO), most practitioners are familiar with the expression "It is a principle of procedural law generally recognised in the contracting states that two patents cannot be granted to the same applicant for the same subject-matter."
When Does an Application Fail the Controversial New EPO Plausibility Test
European patent attorneys are still grappling with the meaning of the new standard for relying on post-published data for inventive step laid down in plausibility decision G 2/21. Here our London Partner Adam Lacy and Munich Partner Stephan Disser review T 258/21, which is the first decision to apply the new test to conclude that new data cannot be relied upon.
Preservation of Evidence as a Provisional Measure Under the UPCA
On June 13 and 14, 2023, the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) Local Division in Milan granted two applications for preserving evidence (ex parte provisional measure) filed on June 12 and 13, 2023, while an international trade fair was taking place on June 6-14, 2023.
Should you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
With best regards,
HOFFMANN EITLE