Now firmly established as a key pillar of the European patent litigation framework, the UPC is forcing the life science industry to reassess how EPO prosecution strategy translates into downstream litigation exposure. Despite the growing body of UPC case law, significant uncertainty remains as to the extent to which the two forums will align in their treatment of core patentability standards.
This session will examine where the two central European patent forums converge and diverge in their treatment of key aspects of patentability, focusing initially on the UPC’s emerging approach to inventive step and how it compares with established EPO practice. The discussion will then address the ongoing debate surrounding description amendments at the EPO, exploring how the pending G1/25 and G1/24 referrals might shape your patent drafting strategy, prosecution approach and litigation planning in Europe.
- How does the EPO’s problem–solution approach to inventive step compare with the more flexible, multi factor assessment emerging in UPC case law?
- Following G2/21, how is the EPO approaching plausibility and the admissibility of post-filed data, and how are these issues likely to be treated in UPC litigation?
- To what extent are the EPO and UPC converging in their treatment of added subject matter, novelty and sufficiency of disclosure?
- How might debates around description amendments at the EPO, including the pending Enlarged Board referrals G1/24 and G1/25, influence claim interpretation and litigation strategy before the UPC?