Get in touch

Submit

Thank you

G 1/23 vs. G 1/92

 

The preliminary opinion on G 1/23 appears to overturn G 1/92, which had previously concluded that for a product to become prior art, the skilled person must be able to determine the composition of the product and then reproduce it without undue burden. Amongst its reasoning in the preliminary opinion, the Enlarged Board on G 1/23 states that G 1/92 “would directly lead to the result that irreproducible products would effectively cease to exist for the purposes of the EPC. The Enlarged Board is of the opinion that such an extreme result could not have been intended by G 1/92”.   

Preliminary opinion on G 1/23

 

Instead, the preliminary opinion on G 1/23 concludes that a product which is put on the market (and is therefore publicly available) is prior art even if the skilled person is unable to analyse and reproduce its composition. Therefore, whereas currently an Applicant may be able to patent a product which had been on the market before filing by arguing that the product was non-reproducible (e.g. due to secret know-how), this will no longer be possible if the Decision that issues on G 1/23 matches the preliminary opinion.

 

The Enlarged Board has given the EPO President and the parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary opinion by 16 October 2024, after which a final Decision will be issued. This Decision has the potential to impact the commercialisation and IP strategies of innovators in a wide variety of technical fields. We will keep you updated.

 

Continue reading about G 1/23 - Potential changes ahead for what constitutes “state of the art”?
MoreCase Law Review: Board of Appeal Decision T 2353/22

05.12.2025

Case Law Review: Board of Appeal Decision T 2353/22

A recent Board of Appeal decision upheld the COMVIK test as the gold standard to determining whether computer-implemented methods are technical or not, and assessing inventive step.

MoreSufficiency at the EPO for AI inventions

15.08.2023

Sufficiency at the EPO for AI inventions

At the European Patent Office, for the purposes of examination, applications disclosing and claiming subject matter relating to Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning are treated in a similar manner to applications disclosing and claiming subject matter relating to other types of mathematical methods or algorithms implemented on a computer (see the EPO’s Guidelines for Examination (GfE) on AI inventions).

Get in touch

Submit

Thank you