Meet the team

EPO PATENT OPPOSITION

Elkington + Fife LLP

London, England
+1 other location
  • Sevenoaks, England
View firm profile

Organigram

Team Services

Within our practice, we have carved out a niche expertise in EPO opposition and appeal work.  A handful of our partners are “familiar faces” on the EPO opposition circuit.

Considering the number of oppositions filed at the EPO each year and the number of European patent attorneys, a patent attorney might average one case every year or two.  In contrast, our oppositions team handle dozens of cases per year.  We have therefore developed detailed knowledge of the law and procedure applied by the opposition divisions and boards of appeal.  In fact, we have acted numerous times in front of the enlarged board of appeal.  Most attorneys would not appear before the enlarged board over their whole career.

Whether you need to defend an opposition, or oppose a patent, we can provide the expertise you require.

The key to success in opposition is understanding exactly how the EPO applies the problem-solution approach to the analysis of inventive step.  And whether we are acting for the patentee or the opponent, we use that knowledge and experience to tip the case in your favour.  This may involve commissioning experiments, talking to experts (in-house or external), searching, or simply presenting the existing facts in the appropriate manner.

Testimonials

Whitepapers and Articles

G2/21: POST-FILED DATA AND THE END OF ‘PLAUSIBILITY’

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has released its long-waited decision in G2/21 “Plausibility”, as announced in a press release yesterday. The decision deals with the issue when post-filing evidence is accepted by the EPO to support a technical effect upon which a patentee relies for inventive step. The Enlarged Board was asked to consider, among other questions, whether such a technical effect must have been considered plausible at the filing date. Apart from discouraging use of the term ‘plausibility’ itself, the decision gives little reason to expect a significant change in approach to the acceptance of post-filing evidence.