Learn the key differences between EPO oppositions and UPC revocation actions, from filing windows and procedural timelines to costs, scope and strategic considerations when challenging European patents.
The Enlarged Board’s G 1/25 decision confirms description amendments are only needed where unresolved inconsistencies with the claims cause non-compliance with the EPC.
An EPO Board of Appeal decision reinforces the lessons of G 1/19. Careful claim drafting for computer-modelling inventions is essential to establish inventive step and preserve amendment options.
A recent EPO Board of Appeal decision confirms that applicants can correct errors in grant texts through appeal, but may still have to pay the appeal fee if they failed to identify the mistake earlier.
A recent EPO appeal decision highlights the risks of claim alternatives, confirming that each alternative must independently meet sufficiency requirements.
As of 1 June 2026, the Republic of Moldova officially became the 40th member state of the European Patent Organisation.
Following a December 2025 decision, the EPO will increase key patent fees by 5% from 1 April 2026. Applicants should review portfolios and consider early payments to reduce costs.
Minutes from T 873/24 suggest a new referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on whether G 1/24—requiring consultation of the description when interpreting claims—also applies to added subject matter assessments.
In G1/25, the EPO President confirms that amended claims must be matched by description amendments under Article 84 EPC, in both examination and opposition.
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parties intervening at appeal are parties as of right, not appellants and can’t continue proceedings if appeals are withdrawn.
