Jorien Wartena
- Benelux Trademark and Design Attorney
Lutz Keydel
- European and German Patent and Trademark Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Claudia Meindel
- Attorney-at-Law
Jetze Beeksma
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Annelies de Bosch Kemper-de Hilster
- Head Legal
Philipp Reichl
- European and German Patent and Trademark Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Marco Box
- European, Dutch and Belgian Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Teun van den Heuvel
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Tamara Elmore
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
- United States Patent Agent
News
Column: Can you patent something illegal?
Can an invention whose manufacture, sale or use is illegal still qualify for patent protection? It is a question that surprises many people, because the answer is less straightforward than you might expect. Under European patent law, illegality does not automatically preclude an invention from being patentable.
Continue reading
G 1/25: the description must be adapted only where an inconsistency leads to non-compliance with the EPC
In G 1/25 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 3 September 2026), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) decided whether, and on what legal basis, the description must be adapted when the claims are amended. The decision resolves a long-standing divergence in the case law of the Boards of Appeal and builds directly on G 1/24. The Enlarged Board chose a middle course: adaptation is required only where an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description leads to non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC.
Continue readingUPC clarifies lack of entitlement as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC
In UPC_CFI_523/2025, Wittenstein SE v Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), decided on 2 September 2026 how lack of entitlement may operate as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court held that it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish rights to only part of the patented subject-matter: revocation on this ground requires proof that the registered proprietor has no rights to the patent.
Continue reading