Posts Tagged: "European Patent Office"

Last week, the European Patent Office (EPO) announced six U.S. researchers as finalists for the European Inventor Award 2021. The EPO began the prestigious European Inventor Award in 2006 to honor individual and teams of inventors in five categories, i.e. Industry, Research, SMEs, Non-EPO countries and Lifetime achievement. The finalists and winners are selected by an independent jury of experts in the fields of business, politics, science, academia and research. In addition, a Popular Prize is awarded based on a public vote wherein the public selects a winner from among 15 finalists through online voting. U.S. researcher Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic was nominated for a lifetime achievement award for devoting her career to “developing an ex vivo tissue engineering technique for more precise tissue cultivation.” The remaining U.S. finalists were nominated in the “Non-EPO countries” category. In particular, Kim Lewis and Slava S. Epstein were nominated for their development of a device for separating and incubating single strains of bacteria in nature, Sumita Mitra was nominated for pioneering use of nanotechnology in dentistry, and Bo Pi and Yi He were nominated for developing the first fingerprint sensor capable of detecting both a fingerprint’s pattern and the presence of blood flow.

On April 7, 2021, the European Patent Office (EPO) Opposition Division (OD) issued a comprehensive written decision in the Opposition by Gilead Sciences, Inc. against NuCana plc’s European Patent No. B-2 955 190, upholding amended compound claims that include Gilead’s blockbuster hepatitis C drug, Sovaldi (sofosbuvir). The claims were upheld over various arguments made by Gilead, including an assertion that the NuCana patent did not teach the skilled worker how to make the nucleoside component of Sovaldi (which is a nucleotide phosphoramidate). Gilead alleged, as it did in the myriad of global Idenix litigation cases, that a skilled person in 2003 who tried to make the nucleoside of Sovaldi “would be required to undertake extensive experimentation, if indeed he would be able to succeed at all. This represented an undue burden.”

On March 16, the European Patent Office (EPO) released the Patent Index 2020, which gives the public a snapshot view of the filing activities going on at the EU’s patent granting agency during the past year. Total patent application filings declined only slightly during 2020 to just over 180,000 patent applications, a reduction of 0.7% compared to the EPO’s 2019 patent filing totals. Despite a 4.1% decrease in patent application filings at the EPO, the United States still held the top spot among individual countries with 44,293 EPO patent filings. Patent application filing totals also dropped in Germany (down 3% to 25,954 filings) and Japan (down 1.1% to 21,841). The United States, Germany and Japan were ranked first, second and third, respectively, in the EPO Patent Index 2020.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) recently published its decision No. G1/19 on patentability of simulations. There was great anticipation for such a decision, after landmark decisions 641/00 (COMVIK) and G3/08, mainly due to the ambiguous formulations of the questions of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The result is “business as usual”, but several clarifications might be useful in the future. In the following, we first summarize the questions of law, the clarifications of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and then infer possible consequences for applicants and practitioners.

As discussed in Part I of this article, the European Patent Office (EPO) recently published its Guidelines for Examination 2021, which came into force on March 1. In the previous article, we detailed changes affecting computer-implemented inventions and with respect to procedural matters. Here, we will address the Guidelines’ changes for biotech. In addition to some specifications regarding the interpretation of terms relating to amino and nucleic acid sequences and the definition of the concept of “therapy” and of the products that can be claimed in view of their new medical use, the main additions that have been made to the part of the Guidelines relating to biotechnological inventions concern the exclusions from patentability, and in particular the ineligibility of inventions relating to plants or animals and human embryos. A full section has also been added relating to the patentability of antibodies.

The European Patent Office (EPO) recently published its Guidelines for Examination 2021, which came into force on March 1.

The trend towards an accurate and detailed explanation of substantive and formal requirements is maintained, keeping up to speed with the recent case law. The changes are limited but helpful, and this witnesses the effort by the EPO in past years to arrive at a stable text of the Guidelines, particularly concerning the software and biotech patentability sections.

The latest in a series of reports by the European Patent Office (EPO) and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) studying IP-intensive industries and their contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union has found that companies owning at least one patent, registered design or trademark generate higher revenues per employee than companies that do not own IP rights and pay higher wages on average than other companies. The EPO-EUIPO report is titled “Intellectual property rights and firm performance in the European Union” and builds on research conducted in 2013, 2016 and 2019 regarding the contribution of IP-intensive companies to the EU economy, as well as a 2015 EUIPO study based on data from 12 Member States. The latest report analyzes over 127,000 European firms and compares the economic performance of firms that own IPRs with those that do not.

The European Patent Office (EPO) issued a press release and 75-page study on December 10, titled “Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution – the global technology trends enabling the data-driven economy,” which examined global trends in innovation in fourth industrial revolution (4IR) technologies. As used in the study, 4IR denotes “the full integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the context of manufacturing and application areas such as personal, home, vehicle, enterprise and infrastructure,” and it marks a “radical step towards a fully data-driven economy.” The study examined international patent families (IPFs), i.e., inventions for which patent applications have been filed in two or more patent offices, related to 4IR worldwide between 2000 and 2018. The study revealed that, between 2010 and 2018, global patent filings for 4IR technologies, including smart connected objects, Internet of Things, Big Data, 5G, and Artificial Intelligence (AI), grew at an average annual rate of almost 20%, which is nearly five times faster than the average of all technology fields.

On Tuesday, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a joint study titled “Innovation in batteries and electricity storage – a global analysis based on patent data.” The study revealed that patenting activity in batteries and other electricity storage technologies grew four times faster than the average for all technology fields over the past decade, but that “energy storage… is currently not on track to achieve the levels called for in the [IEA’s] Sustainable Development Scenario, both in terms of its deployment and its performance.”

On July 13, the European Patent Office (EPO) published a landscaping study titled “Patents and additive manufacturing: Trends in 3D printing technologies”. The study highlighted current trends and identified industry leaders in additive manufacturing (AM), i.e. 3D printing. It noted that between 2015 and 2018 the number of AM patent applications increased at an average annual rate of 36%, with more than 4,000 AM patent applications filed in 2018 alone.

For the past 60 years, scientists have been able to utilize artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other technological advances to “promote the general science …”. U.S. courts have increasingly come under pressure to not only allow AI-directed applications as patentable subject matter, but also from a small yet determined and growing contingency of IP professionals, to recognize the AIs themselves as the inventors. The EPO recently handed down guidance that AI could not be recognized as inventors on patent applications. The purpose of this piece is not to debate the merits of whether or not AI should be given inventor status on applications which, it has been argued, they are rightly due—nor should it be. It is important, however, to peek beyond the looking glass into a future where AI are given status in the United States that has, as of the writing of this piece, been reserved for human beings. Let’s explore a few main issues.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office published opinion G 3/19 “Pepper” on Thursday, May 14, holding that plants and animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process are excluded from patentability. The opinion, which arose via a referral from the EPO President, also set out principles regarding the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) that could apply in other technical fields. 

Patent applications filed at the European Patent Office (EPO) rose 4% to 181,406 in 2019, driven by substantial increases from Chinese, Korean and U.S. applicants, according to a report published by the Office yesterday. The United States was the number one country of residence of applicants, with 46,201 applications—a rise of 5.5%. This accounted for 25% of all European patent applications. The U.S. was followed by Germany and Japan. Applications from the People’s Republic of China increased by 29.2% to 12,247 putting the country in fourth place, while those from the Republic of Korea grew by 14.1%.

Earlier this month, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) each rejected two patent applications that designated an artificial intelligence named DABUS as the inventor. While the UKIPO published a decision setting out its reasoning, the EPO simply stated at the time that the applications did “not meet the requirement of the European Patent Convention (EPC) that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine.” Now, the EPO has released more detail about the grounds for its decision. In the EPO press release today, the Office explained: “The EPO considered that the interpretation of the legal framework of the European patent system leads to the conclusion that the inventor designated in a European patent must be a natural person. The Office further noted that the understanding of the term inventor as referring to a natural person appears to be an internationally applicable standard, and that various national courts have issued decisions to this effect.”

Patent prosecution can sometimes seem to be a rather byzantine process. As with anything, the more you understand, the better prepared you will be for the strategic decisions that lie ahead, some of which will result in a streamlined patent approval, but which will also raise the overall cost of obtaining the protection desired. In this regard the patent process is full of trade-offs. For many, getting a patent quickly is very important, as is the case with high-tech start-ups and SMEs seeking reputational advantages, additional funding, licensing opportunities and partnerships. With this in mind, here are eight helpful tips co-authored with the Morningside IP team and specifically aimed at those applicants filing at the European Patent Office (EPO) who are hoping to obtain a strategically reasonable set of patent claims with a streamlined patent application approval process. Of course, following these eight tips can and should also pay dividends with respect to getting your patent approved in other patent offices around the world.