Trial and Appeal Practitioners Study Group Report 2024 — Theme 3 (Chemistry 2)
更新日：10月10日
Article information
Article type: Reports and activities
Category: Patents, Europe
Topics: Inventive step, Examination and appeal practice
First published on this site: 2026-10-11
Display/classification checked: 2026-10-11
Trial and Appeal Practitioners Study Group Report 2024 — Theme 3 (Chemistry 2)
[Consideration of experimental results submitted after filing: inventive step]
Regarding experimental results submitted after filing (post-filed data), the practice is established to a certain extent: consideration is permitted insofar as a person skilled in the art can infer the effect from the specification or drawings. As stated in the guidance, examiners should not consider an effect asserted and proved in written arguments, etc., if it is neither described in the specification nor inferable by a person skilled in the art from the specification or drawings.
Recently in Europe, in appeal proceedings concerning EP2484209 (insecticide compositions for controlling pests), the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued G 2/21 in response to questions referred by a Technical Board of Appeal. Regarding evidence submitted after the filing date in assessing inventive step, it held that:
① it cannot be disregarded solely because it was submitted later;
② a technical effect may be relied upon for inventive step if a person skilled in the art, bearing common general knowledge in mind and on the basis of the application as originally filed, can derive that effect as encompassed by its technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.
Original article (2025-07-23):
Related articles
Update history
This history records actual publication, display, and classification changes made on this site.
2026-10-11: First published the LinkedIn original on this site and set the classification, article information, and consultation link.
