HOFFMANN EITLE Quarterly Newsletter 12/25
Publication | 15.12.2025
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
In this final issue of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly for 2025, we begin by exploring the key interplay between trade fairs in Germany and IP, from the perspectives of both rights holders and exhibitors. Our second article analyzes the implications of the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decision G 1/24 for the EPO's added-matter requirement, highlighting the divergent approaches emerging among the Boards. The third article reviews a decision of a Board of Appeal in which a contradiction between two claims resulted in the patent being revoked for insufficient disclosure. We then turn to decision G 2/24, which confirmed that, after the withdrawal of all appeals, proceedings cannot continue with an intervener who joined at the appeal stage, and we examine its practical significance. Finally, in our fifth article, we continue our series comparing the substantive law of the UPC with that of the EPO and national courts. As always, we hope you will find this issue of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly informative, and we welcome your feedback.
Nicolas Douxchamps
Editor-in-chief of the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly
Partner - Belgian and European Patent Attorney
HE Electrical Engineering & Digital Technologies Practice Group
Enforcing IP Rights at Trade Fairs in Germany
Trade fairs in Germany offer key opportunities for business exposure but can also give rise to IP infringement. Powerful tools are available in Germany's legal system for swiftly enforcing IP rights, including on-site actions during trade fairs. Effective enforcement requires preparation, including strong IP portfolios, competitor surveillance, and logistical readiness for swift legal action.
Impact of G 1/24 on the Assessment of Added Matter at the EPO
Landmark decision G 1/24 doesn't refer to Article 123 EPC and instead expressly makes reference to Articles 52 to 57 EPC, so from the outset it was questionable whether it applies for assessing added matter. T 2048/22 suggests that it does, and moreover indicates that in some specific cases, G 1/24 may soften the extremely strict added matter approach adopted by the Boards. That said, it seems that not all Boards agree as can be taken from T 405/24.
T 878/23 – How a Dependent Claim Can Bring Down a European Patent for Insufficient Disclosure
The Board of Appeal's decision T 878/23 is a stark reminder that it is important to make sure that the claims of a European patent are all in line, do not contradict each other, and cannot give rise to issues which could put in question that they can be technically carried out over their entire scope. The decision also once more emphasizes the necessity to file all potentially helpful auxiliary requests at the earliest possibility.
Intervention During EPO Appeal Proceedings: G 2/24 upholds G 3/04
The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decision G 2/24 confirmed its earlier finding in decision G 3/04 that, after withdrawal of all appeals, the proceedings may not be continued with a third party who intervened during the appeal proceedings. That is, an intervener at the appeal stage does not acquire an appellant status, but only acquires a status equivalent to that of an opponent who would not have filed an appeal against the first- instance decision.
UPC Substantive Law - Comparisons With the EPO and National Courts
This article is a continuation of a series in the Hoffmann Eitle Quarterly, in which we compare substantive law at the UPC with that of the EPO and national courts.
Should you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
With best regards,
HOFFMANN EITLE