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 selection inventions
To infinity and beyond! The sufficiency requirements for open-ended ranges (T 1977/22) To infinity and beyond! The sufficiency requirements for open-ended ranges (T 1977/22) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Tuesday, March 04, 2025 Rating: 5
Inventive step of treating a subpopulation of patients in view of prior art reporting a positive phase 3 clinical trial (T 1437/21) Inventive step of treating a subpopulation of patients in view of prior art reporting a positive phase 3 clinical trial (T 1437/21) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Friday, March 29, 2024 Rating: 5
Unambiguous disclosure without patent profanity (T 2171/21) Unambiguous disclosure without patent profanity (T 2171/21) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Wednesday, December 20, 2023 Rating: 5
The criteria for the novelty and inventive step of pharmaceutical selection inventions (T 1356/21) The criteria for the novelty and inventive step of pharmaceutical selection inventions (T 1356/21) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Wednesday, December 13, 2023 Rating: 5
Gold Standard test for novelty reigns supreme, even for subranges (T 1688/20) Gold Standard test for novelty reigns supreme, even for subranges (T 1688/20) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Tuesday, January 17, 2023 Rating: 5
Boards of Appeal back rejection of special criteria for the novelty of purity inventions, but the Guidelines remain out of step (T 0043/18) Boards of Appeal back rejection of special criteria for the novelty of purity inventions, but the Guidelines remain out of step (T 0043/18) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Tuesday, August 30, 2022 Rating: 5
Does the requirement for a "technical contribution" in a novel selection survive? (if selecting from convergent lists) (T 1621/16) Does the requirement for a "technical contribution" in a novel selection survive? (if selecting from convergent lists) (T 1621/16) Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 Rating: 5
Do we need a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the novelty of selection inventions? Do we need a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the novelty of selection inventions? Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Monday, January 13, 2020 Rating: 5
2019 updates to the EPO Guidelines for Examination - the highlights 2019 updates to the EPO Guidelines for Examination - the highlights Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes on Sunday, October 13, 2019 Rating: 5
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.