March 24, 2023
Authored and Edited by James G. Bell; Maeve O'Flynn; Victoria Randall, Ph.D.
The much-anticipated decision in G2/21 issued from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (“the Board”) at the European Patent Office on 23 March 2023. Three points were referred to the Board regarding the diverging evidentiary standards of using plausibility/implausibility for technical effect determination based on evidence presented after the filing date of the application, “post-filed evidence”. The Board ultimately held that:
1) evidence provided after the effective filing date of the application and relied upon by an applicant/patentee to prove a technical effect may not be disregarded solely because the evidence was not public prior to the filing of the application; and
2) a technical effect derivable by one of skill in the art from, and embodied by, the technical teachings of the application at time of filing may serve as a basis for an inventive step.
Critical to the Board’s decision in G2/21 was its qualification of free evaluation of evidence in assessing any means of evidence submitted as a “universally applicable principle of both procedural and substantive law” and its determination that “plausibility,” is not a distinct condition of patentability and patent validity as concerns either Articles 56 (inventive step) or 83 (sufficiency of disclosure) of the EPC. G2/21 ¶¶ 89 and 92.
Given these principles, the Board concluded that the relevant standard, when assessing inventive step, is what one of skill would understand to be the technical teaching of the application as of the filing date, and whether the technical effect relied upon for inventive step was encompassed in that technical teaching. Evidence demonstrating a technical effect so encompassed, even though only available after the filing date of the application, is to be taken into account when assessing inventive step. Id. ¶¶ 93-94.
Takeaway: post-filed evidence can be used to support a technical effect, if that technical effect can be derived from the technical teaching of the application at the filing date.
Look for a more detailed analysis of this case coming soon.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.