Updates on IP news from our global team!

Decision G1/24 Provides Guidance on Claim Interpretation Before The EPO

On June 18, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), the highest judicial authority under the European Patent Convention (EPC), issued decision G1/24 relating to claim interpretation for the purpose of assessing the patentability of an invention. The Enlarged Board of Appeal, considering the role to be attributed to the description in the patentability assessment, has established that the claims alone do not suffice for the purpose, that they are only the starting point, and that the description (and any drawings, when present) must always be consulted. In view of authority of the Enlarged Board, decision G1/24 will have an impact on the assessment of patentability of any European patent application prosecuted before EPO Examining Divisions as well as on the assessment of validity of any European patent before the EPO Opposition Divisions and Boards of Appeal. 

Tokyo District Court Grants Unprecedented Injunction in SEP Case

Photo Credit: Adarsh Chauhan

In a rare outcome, the Tokyo District Court granted a landmark injunction against Google on June 23, 2025, in a patent infringement suit brought by Pantech. It is unusual for the Japanese court to grant such relief; however, the facts of the case played an important role in reaching the result. Pantech’s asserted patent is classified as SEP and declared under FRAND terms. The court recognized that once a patent owner makes a FRAND declaration an injunction is unavailable unless the alleged infringer refuses to negotiate licensing terms in good faith. 

日本語 ▪ 简体中文 ▪ 繁體中文

China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law Amended, Effective October 15, 2025

China's legislature passed an amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law (“Amended Law”) on June 27, 2025, which will take effect on October 15, 2025. This marks the third amendment to the law since its initial implementation in 1993. The number of Articles has increased from 33 to 41 by this amendment, reflecting an effort to adapt to new developments in the internet industry and directly address emerging issues of unfair competition online. The amendment aims to further improve fair competition rules within the digital economy.

简体中文 ▪ 繁體中文

Federal Circuit Clarifies Concept of “Conception”

Photo Credit: Julia Koblitz

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a significant opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., providing fundamental guidance on the legal standard of “conception” in patent law. The decision vacates the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) 2022 interference ruling in the long-running CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute and remands the case for further consideration under the clarified standard. While interferences are close to becoming obsolete as there are few pending pre-AIA applications still eligible for interference proceedings, the decision is still highly relevant in other post-AIA contexts.

Applying Machine Learning to a New Field Does Not Impart Patent Eligibility

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for infringement of machine learning patents based on subject matter ineligibility of the patent claims under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court had concluded that the claims recited known machine learning algorithms and did not provide a specific method for improving the algorithm, nor did they add “significantly more” to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning algorithm in a specific field.  Thus, the claims were deemed to be invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit distilled the matter down to the question of whether applying established methods of machine learning to new fields imparts patent eligibility, concluding that it does not. This decision highlights the importance of drafting claims related to machine learning algorithms to avoid “generic” language and, where possible, tying inventive methods to physical improvements of the computer or system.

We are excited to welcome Dr. Matthew Madsen to OBWB as Of Counsel.

Matthew brings a unique blend of legal and scientific expertise, with a Ph.D. in Biological Chemistry from Brigham Young University and a J.D. from the University of Houston. He joins us with extensive in-house experience from Mars Petcare and Bayer/Monsanto, where he led intellectual property strategy across global R&D and commercial teams.

At OBWB, Matthew will focus on IP transactions and biotech, working closely with our team to expand the firm’s growing life sciences practice. His deep knowledge of intellectual property strategies, technology development, and regulatory policy will be a tremendous asset to our clients.

Congratulations to our Colleagues in China

In recognition of continued excellence, we are very pleased to announce the promotion of Shaoping Zhong to Vice President, Osha BWB (Beijing) and of Jude Yi to General Manager, Osha BWB (Hangzhou).

On June 25th, OBWB hosted the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) European Practice Committee Conference in Paris.

Session topics focused on IP developments in Europe and at the EPO. OBWB Global Chair Jonathan Osha gave a special presentation on Trends & Developments in AI. Thanks to everyone who attended.

OBWB Paris team pictured at the event: Niloufer Ravari, Christophe Besnard,

Pascale Brochard, Ph.D., Francesca Giovannini, and Jonathan Osha.

www.obwb.com