Challenging a patentee’s legal entitlement to claim priority is a common tactic in contentious proceedings in Europe. If successful, the patent can be held invalid by the effect of intervening prior art. This situation arose in a recent high-profile case before the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office in decision T844/18. A high-value patent in the field of gene editing (CRISPR) was revoked for lack novelty over intervening prior art following a loss of priority. The case does not change the law in Europe. Nevertheless, it provides an opportunity to reassess best practice for applicants. In this webinar we will provide a concise review of European case law and practice in this area. We will briefly discuss what went wrong and why for the patentees in T844/18, and we will outline practical steps and measures that can be taken by applicants to help safeguard priority claims in Europe.
Topics will include:
- The right of priority as a procedural right which is separate from substantive rights in the invention
- A concise round-up of European case law and practice relating to priority entitlement
- A brief summary of the Board of
- Appeal decision T844/18 and what lessons can be learned from the case
- Practical advice to help mitigate against attacks on priority claims in Europe