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

The England and Wales appeals court handed down its judgment just seven working days after hearing the trademark dispute involving pharma company Merck
A host of law firms from across Europe and beyond helped bring the streaming technology dispute to a close
Hugues Derème, director general of the Benelux IP Office, unveils his vision for the region, how to improve IP awareness, and use of AI
A copyright win for AI firm Anthropic and a new executive order against law firm Jenner & Block were also among the top talking points this week
A principal at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner explains how AI tools, including DeepIP, can position the firm to help clients
The firm explains why AI-empowered data analytics could make it a more efficient advocate for its clients
Penelope Aspinall, of IP wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, explains why managers should take a three-tiered approach to looking after workers’ mental health
Heath Hoglund talks about the value proposition of patent pools and why it went ahead with its first-ever series of pool meetings in China
Ryan Richardson, Chris O’Brien, and Jean Selep of Sterne Kessler analyse the treatment of SEPs at the UPC and ITC and highlight why SEP holders and implementers should be mindful of current developments in both forums
A ruling concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction, questions over costs transparency, and a missed deadline by Amazon were among the top talking points this fortnight
Gift this article