New referral to EPO over hidden internal structure or composition in prior art

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

New referral to EPO over hidden internal structure or composition in prior art

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
molecules-3713741.jpg

Edward Farrington of Inspicos reports that guidance is being sought from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal three decades after a decision on the analysis of complex products

Patentees and patent applicants before the EPO are occasionally faced with prior art – for example, products which have been put on the market – the internal structure or composition of which is not clear without further investigation. In mechanical fields, such products might be devices or apparatuses which have to be disassembled or broken up to determine the contents. In the chemical field, such products might be polymers or similar chemical compositions, which are difficult or impossible to analyse.

Enlarged Board decision G 1/92 (OJ EPO May 1993) considered what “hidden properties” such products actually disclosed. Decision G 1/92 found that “[t]he chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person… Where it is possible for the skilled person to discover the composition or the internal structure of the product and to reproduce it without undue burden, then both the product and its composition or internal structure become state of the art.”

Although decision G 1/92 is regularly relied upon by parties before the EPO, it did not clearly explain the meaning of the phrases “reproduce without undue burden”, “available to the public”, and “can be analysed”. Divergent case law has developed since G 1/92: some decisions requiring a high level of certainty when analysing hidden properties, others requiring a less complete analysis, and still other decisions excluding such disclosures from the state of the art altogether.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has therefore been asked to clarify some of the issues remaining after G 1/92 in a new referral, G 1/23.

In particular, the EBA will consider whether a marketed product can be excluded from the prior art if its composition or internal structure cannot be analysed. It will also consider whether technical information about a marketed product is state of the art, regardless of whether the composition or internal structure of the product can be analysed. The EBA is also being asked to clarify which criteria apply in determining whether the composition or internal structure of a product could be analysed and reproduced without undue burden.

It is hoped that decision G 1/23 will provide guidance as to which level complex products such as polymers must be analysed if they are to be considered state of the art.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Exclusive data and analysis reveal why clients feel external legal teams aren’t providing business-centric advice
The head of the soft IP team at engineering group Sandvik, winner of the in-house team of the year award, reveals why a flurry of M&A activity led to a busy 2024
Lawyers at Herbert Smith Freehills outline what rights owners should be doing ahead of sweeping changes to EU design law
Deals between five more law firms and President Trump and an antitrust lawsuit against Amgen were also among the top talking points this week
US counsel explain how they win new cleantech IP business and how they’re navigating the industry’s challenges
Leaders at the IP firms, which have joined forces with backing from a PE investor, share their vision of building the number one pan-European IP practice
Firms will steer clients towards other ways of getting quicker examinations, but fear the ramifications of the USPTO’s decision
Melissa Haapala added that returning to client advocacy and the chance to work on patent litigation were reasons for returning to private practice
Michelle Clark, who has a generalist litigation background, plans to focus on IP disputes at Alston & Bird
Philips and Vivo have entered into a licensing agreement, putting an end to a five-year-old telecom SEP dispute in India
Gift this article