{"id":24133,"date":"2023-03-27T09:46:47","date_gmt":"2023-03-27T09:46:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133"},"modified":"2023-03-27T09:54:59","modified_gmt":"2023-03-27T09:54:59","slug":"english-epos-enlarged-board-of-appeal-ruling-in-g2-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/flash-news\/epos-enlarged-board-of-appeal-ruling-in-g2-21\/","title":{"rendered":"EPO\u2019s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruling in G2\/21"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On 23 March 2023 the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epo.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">European Patent Office<\/a> (EPO) issued its long-awaited <a href=\"https:\/\/documents.epo.org\/projects\/babylon\/eponet.nsf\/0\/C620B61029205275C125897B002BEDCF\/$File\/G2_21_Decision_%20of_the_Enlarged_Board_of_Appeal_of_23_March_2023_EN.pdf\">decision in case G2\/21<\/a> concerning \u201cReliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)\u201d.<img class=\"alignright wp-image-1255\" title=\"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal\" src=\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/EPO-logo.png\" alt=\"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal\" width=\"450\" height=\"225\" \/><\/p>\n<p>One of the EPO\u2019s technical boards of appeal had referred to the EBoA the following question for a decision under Article 112(1)(a) EPC in combination with Article 22 RPBA 2020:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>If for acknowledgement of inventive step the patent proprietor relies on a technical effect and has submitted evidence, such as experimental data, to prove such an effect, this evidence not having been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and having been filed after that date (post-published evidence):<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>1-\u00a0 Should an exception to the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see e.g. G 3\/97, Reasons 5, and G 1\/12, Reasons 31) be accepted in that post-published evidence must be disregarded on the ground that the proof of the effect rests <strong>exclusively<\/strong> on the post-published evidence?<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>2- If the answer is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have considered the effect plausible (ab initio plausibility)?<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>3- If the answer to the first question is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have seen no reason to consider the effect implausible (ab initio implausibility)?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The EBoA answered the question as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>1- Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px;\"><em>2- A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In a nutshell, the EBoA held that post-published evidence may be taken into account if the skilled person, with common general knowledge in mind, would understand from the application as originally filed that the technical effect relied upon is encompassed by the overall teaching of the invention.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><em>Related content<\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/patents\/inventions-insights\/patents\/european-patents\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span id=\"post_type_title\">Information &#8211; European patents<\/span><\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On 23 March 2023 the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its long-awaited decision in case G2\/21 concerning \u201cReliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)\u201d. One of the EPO\u2019s technical boards of appeal had referred to the EBoA the following question for a decision under Article [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":4151,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v18.4.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-27T09:46:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-03-27T09:54:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"263\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"160\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Laura Ercoli\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/\",\"name\":\"\",\"description\":\"Intellectual Property since 1882\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg\",\"width\":263,\"height\":160,\"caption\":\"Depositi brevetto europeo\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133\",\"name\":\"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-27T09:46:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-27T09:54:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#\/schema\/person\/3988cde84153da4b745510f0712d395b\"},\"description\":\"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"(English) EPO\u2019s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruling in G2\/21\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#\/schema\/person\/3988cde84153da4b745510f0712d395b\",\"name\":\"Laura Ercoli\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/40352aead1e319e41371a554b61ab9b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/40352aead1e319e41371a554b61ab9b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Laura Ercoli\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/author\/lercoli\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal","description":"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal","og_description":"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?","og_url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133","article_published_time":"2023-03-27T09:46:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-03-27T09:54:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":263,"height":160,"url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Laura Ercoli","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/","name":"","description":"Intellectual Property since 1882","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/EPO.jpg","width":263,"height":160,"caption":"Depositi brevetto europeo"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133","name":"Decision G 2\/21 EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2023-03-27T09:46:47+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-27T09:54:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#\/schema\/person\/3988cde84153da4b745510f0712d395b"},"description":"Decision in G 2\/21 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO: when can post-published evidence be taken into account?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/?p=24133#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"(English) EPO\u2019s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruling in G2\/21"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#\/schema\/person\/3988cde84153da4b745510f0712d395b","name":"Laura Ercoli","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/40352aead1e319e41371a554b61ab9b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/40352aead1e319e41371a554b61ab9b8?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Laura Ercoli"},"url":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/author\/lercoli\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24133"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24133"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24137,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24133\/revisions\/24137"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sib.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}