Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Söğüt Atilla, Oliver Fairhurst, Claire Gregg, Georgia Jenkins and Marcel Pemsel.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Jocelyn Bosse (Book Review Editor).

InternKats: Wissam Bentazar, Simone Lorenzi and Kliment Markov.
Results for post-published data
The plausibility of diagnostic inventions: No data, no patent (T 0589/22) The plausibility of diagnostic inventions: No data, no patent (T 0589/22) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Rating: 5
Reliance on a silent technical effect: Application of G 2/21 to semiconductors (T 2465/19) Reliance on a silent technical effect: Application of G 2/21 to semiconductors (T 2465/19) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Monday, October 02, 2023 Rating: 5
Interpretation of G 2/21: Inventive step may be supported solely by post-published data (T 0116/18) Interpretation of G 2/21: Inventive step may be supported solely by post-published data (T 0116/18) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Sunday, September 10, 2023 Rating: 5
UK divergence from the EPO on plausibility (Sandoz v BMS), Part 2: Interpretation of G 2/21 UK divergence from the EPO on plausibility (Sandoz v BMS), Part 2: Interpretation of G 2/21 Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Thursday, July 20, 2023 Rating: 5
UK divergence from the EPO on plausibility (Sandoz v BMS), Part 1: Is the "plausibility" test the same for both sufficiency and inventive step? UK divergence from the EPO on plausibility (Sandoz v BMS), Part 1: Is the "plausibility" test the same for both sufficiency and inventive step? Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Thursday, July 20, 2023 Rating: 5
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.