‘A good patent description can act as a catalyst for innovation.’
Lydia Schenk studied Mechanical Engineering at Delft University of Technology (2020). During her studies, she also completed courses at Leiden University.
News
R 0016/23: the Enlarged Board confirms the mandatory nature of oral proceedings upon request under Article 116(1) EPC
In R 0016/23 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 21 November 2025), the Enlarged Board set aside a Legal Board of Appeal decision which had dismissed an appeal without holding requested oral proceedings. The decision is a clear statement that efficiency and “timely legal certainty” cannot, in themselves, justify restricting the scope of Article 116(1) EPC when […]Continue reading
Medical-device infringement and “standard use”: LD Munich on lege artis use and conditional revocation counterclaims (UPC_CFI_628/2024)
In its decision on the merits in UPC_CFI_628/2024 (with the related revocation counterclaim UPC_CFI_125/2025), the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) addressed two practically relevant issues:Continue reading
Choosing a suitable starting point for inventive step and remittal for an incomplete search: T 0610/24 (Board 3.5.01)
In T 0610/24, the Board set aside a refusal for lack of inventive step and remitted the case for further prosecution, including a further search. The decision is notable for its treatment of the “closest prior art” in the problem–solution approach and for clarifying when an incomplete prior art search can justify remittal under Article […]Continue reading