EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal addresses the notion of plausibility

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal addresses the notion of plausibility

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
folders-7382940.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos explains a ruling on the acceptance of evidence that is made public after the filing of an application to prove a technical effect

In its most recent decision, G 2/21 of March 23 2023, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO considered fundamental questions in relation to the assessment of non-obviousness, notably on the principle of free evaluation of evidence and the notion of plausibility.

For the assessment of non-obviousness, the EPO generally applies the so-called problem-solution approach, in the context of which the technical effect brought about by the decisive novel feature(s) of the claim in question is to be defined. Often, when arguing in support of an inventive step, applicants for, or proprietors of, European patents attempt to rely on a technical effect which is not disclosed in the application as filed, but which may be apparent on the basis of post-published evidence; i.e., evidence published after the filing date.

According to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, such evidence may not be disregarded for the sole reason that it was not available to the public before the filing date. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal expressed in its decision that it is decisive what the skilled person would understand at the filing date from the application as being the technical teaching of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the technical effect relied upon in relation to non-obviousness must be encompassed by that technical teaching.

Thus, according to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, evidence filed to prove a technical effect of the claimed subject matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence had not been public before the filing date and was filed after that date. Also, a patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for an 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.

G 2/21 underlines the necessity for applicants to include a discussion of the technical effects of the invention, and possibly data supporting such effects, in their applications from the outset.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Barry Greenbaum, partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, explains how in-house teams can update their approach to brand development, and where AI can add value
Christine Chiramel, who joins a full-service law firm after 17 years of working at specialist firms, says she’s excited to explore how corporate commercial issues are blurring into IP
Practitioners say increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of India’s most popular litigation forum to around $2 million would spark unpredictability and make it difficult for SMEs to benefit
The Spain-based firm has appointed an industry veteran to lead the group, which it hopes will strengthen its ability to support clients in ‘disruptive technologies’
Shaina Haria, a final-seat trainee at an international law firm’s UK office, shares how she fell in love with IP and why the area of law has changed the way she views the world
Now in its sixth edition, the IP Case Law Conference was focussed on the notion of ‘growing through change’
Nick Redfearn and Khanh Nguyen of Rouse discuss Vietnam’s latest identification in the 2026 Special 301 Report and how the country is taking genuine steps to meet US expectations
Tatiana Campello reflects on 30 years of practising at the firm, and urges women IP attorneys to think beyond the day-to-day
A David v Goliath battle involving TikTok, and Via Licensing Alliance adding new members to its Voice Codec patent pool, were also among the top talking points
Latham & Watkins bolstered its IP litigation bench in California with the addition of Kieran Kieckhefer, as partner demand for trial-ready expertise shows no sign of slowing
Gift this article