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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Read the full article by Dr. Eva Ehlich<\/a> and Dr. Anja Fux<\/a> published in the 1\/2024 issue by epi. <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-45044","publikationen","type-publikationen","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/ko\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publikationen\/45044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/ko\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publikationen"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/ko\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publikationen"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/ko\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publikationen\/45044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.maiwald.eu\/ko\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}