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

Amanda Yang and Rachel Tan at Rouse and Landy Jiang at Lusheng Law Firm provide an overview of the draft amendments to China’s trademark law
News of EIP launching an AI platform and a trade secret blow for TCS in the US were also among the top talking points
The four-partner addition includes A&O Shearman’s former co-head of global IP litigation
A settlement involving Disney and another ruling concerning a lawyer’s request for access to documents were also among the big developments
Merchant & Gould's managing partner explains why the firm launched a Boston office and why it brought on board a local boutique
The model covers court-guided settlements, submissions-led determination of infringement and validity issues, and provides leeway for the court to determine a FRAND rate during negotiations
Tie up between Belgium-based firms will create an outfit with almost 30 UPC representatives, and a tier one-ranked patent disputes team
Blank Rome’s launch in West Palm Beach, marked by the arrival of two IP partners, comes in response to rising demands from technology clients
Abion says it has brought on board Matt Serlin as its first US hire to meet client demand for ‘full circle’ trademark and domain name services
News of Health Hoglund joining Sisvel and the Delhi High Court staying a $2.2 million decree in favour of Philips were also among the top talking points
Gift this article