Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step – Quo vadis “plausibility” after G 2/21? epi Information, 1/2024

In the context of the effect-driven assessment of inventive step under the European Patent Convention (EPC) it is usually crucial for the outcome whether an Applicant/a Patentee can rely on a specific technical effect corresponding to an improvement over the prior art. In the absence of such improvement, the claimed subject-matter is often found to be obvious. From the perspective of the Applicant/Patentee, flexibility is required to adapt an initially disclosed technical effect in case new evidence such as new prior art or new experiments comes up during examination or opposition proceedings. In a first-to-file system like the EPC, however, the Applicant/Patentee should also not be able to later invoke any effect at will to exclude purely speculative filings and corresponding unwarranted advantages for such Applicants/Patentees. In G 2/21, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) is concerned with providing guidelines on how a proper balance can be achieved. The provisions of G 2/21 have meanwhile been applied in several decisions.

Read the full article by Dr. Eva Ehlich and Dr. Anja Fux published in the 1/2024 issue by epi.

To the article

作者

Dr. Eva Ehlich

Partner

German Patent Attorney

European Patent Attorney

UPC Representative

Chemist

Dr. Anja Fux

Associate

German Patent Attorney

European Patent Attorney

UPC Representative

M.Sc. Biochemistry