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

Cookies Settings

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

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article