The Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 2/24 upheld G 3/04, ruling that third parties intervening at appeal are parties as of right, not appellants and can’t continue proceedings if appeals are withdrawn.
G 1/24 clarifies that while the EPO must consult the description, claims take primacy. Patentees must draft claims clearly – no reliance on interpretive help from the description.
EPO data shows sustained growth in photovoltaic patents, with China leading production. Europe’s universities and start-ups are driving innovation in PV devices, materials, and applications.
T 1846/23 shows how G 1/24 is being applied: the EPO rejects narrowing claims via the description alone. As G 1/25 is awaited, the importance of clear drafting is reinforced.
The European Patent Office (EPO) has insisted upon the adaptation of the description to avoid inconsistencies with amended claims. A Board of Appeal has referred questions on the matter.
G1/24 clarifies claim interpretation under the EPC, confirming that the description and drawings must always be consulted – an important shift in EPO practice.
The UPC’s Court of First Instance confirms the EPO’s problem-and-solution approach as the main method for assessing inventive step, ensuring consistency and legal certainty across Europe.
Last year we reported that the EPO signed a validation agreement with Lao People’s Democratic Republic (PDR). The EPO have now announced
At the end of last year, the EPO, in connection with the International Energy Agency (IEA), announced a study charting the rapid
Can a product be simultaneously available and unavailable to the public? In T 0438/19 , the Board grappled with questions regarding the criteria
