Programme 

Please note that the time zone for the programme is CEST.    

  • Moderator: Giovanni Arca, programme area manager Patent attorneys, European Patent Academy, EPO
Monday, 17 May 2021 
09.25 hrs

Introduction to the online session for new users   

09.30 hrs

Opening

Stephen Rowan, Vice-President Patent Granting Process, EPO
Francis Leyder, President, epi      

09.40 hrs

Panel discussion 

Strengthening diversity and inclusion in the patent world 

Moderator: 

Jeremy Scott, Director, Talent Management, PD People, EPO

Panelists: 

Andrea Brewster, Founder and Lead Executive Officer of IP Inclusive, UK

Amadou Kamara, examiner/team manager, Mobility and Mechatronics, EPO      

Cyra Nargolwalla, Managing Partner, Plasseraud IP

Heli Pihlajamaa, Director, Patent Law, Legal Affairs, EPO
Evangelia Spyropoulou, Director, Operations, Mobility and Mechatronics, EPO

10.30 hrs

Break 

10.45 - 12.15 hrs

Workshop 

Biomaterials: How does medical use affect examination?
Heidi Van den Bulcke, examiner, EPO
Marjorie Chopinaud, examiner/team manager, EPO

   
Tuesday, 18 May 2021
09.25 hrs

Introduction to the online session for new users

09.30 hrs

Workshop 

Borderline cases in cosmetics     

Ilknur Durand-Oral, examiner, EPO
Inma Estañol, examiner, EPO

11.00 hrs

Break

11.30 -13.00 hrs

Workshop 

Sufficiency of disclosure and enablement in pharmaceuticals  

Shiri Burema, examiner, EPO
Miren Langer, examiner, EPO

   
Wednesday, 19 May 2021 
09.25 hrs Introduction to the online session for new users
09.30 hrs

Workshop 

Product-by-process claims in additive manufacturing: pitfalls and remedies

Nathalie Pierre, examiner/team manager, EPO
Valentina Morra, examiner, EPO

11.00 hrs

Break

11.30 - 13.00 hrs

Workshop 

Post-filing of experimental data and the burden of proof

Eveline Lançon, examiner, EPO
Karin Marchand, examiner, EPO

Panel discussion

Strengthening diversity and inclusion in the patent world

Moderator:

Jeremy Scott, UK, Director, Talent Management, PD People, EPO The Hague. Started at the EPO in 1989 as an examiner in pharmacology and worked for many years in training and change management. He was nominated director in 2005 and since then he has managed in Audio Video Media; Electricity and Electronics; Polymers and has headed the VP1 Office. Currently sponsor of the Continuous Knowledge Transfer group and the Asian Patent Expert Group. In 2019, Jeremy started a Diversity and Inclusion programme in his directorate and has seen over 30 events/topics covered. On 1 April 2021, he took over the role of director in Talent Acquisition and Talent Management in the Principle Directorate People. 

Panelists:

Andrea BrewsterAndrea Brewster, UK, Chartered Patent Attorney and European patent attorney. Former President of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA). Until recently she served on the Institute’s governing Council and several of its committees, including the Education Committee. Before her retirement in 2015 she was a partner in a small UK patent and trade mark practice, Greaves Brewster LLP, of which she had been a co-founder. Now leads the IP Inclusive initiative, which she established in 2015 to promote equality, diversity, inclusion and wellbeing throughout the UK’s IP professions.  

 

Amadou KamaraAmadou Kamara, DE, examiner/team manager, Mobility and Mechatronics, EPO The Hague. Graduated from the University of Technology Darmstadt (Germany) in Electrical Engineering, speciality Mechatronics. Has several years of experience in the industry as development, design and construction engineer, in particular in the automotive industry (International Development Center of Adam Opel AG in Rüsselsheim, Germany). Has been working many years at the EPO, first as an examiner and now as a team manager in the sector Mobility and Mechatronics and became last year a D&I promoter.

Cyra NargolwallaCyra Nargolwalla, FR, Managing Partner, Plasseraud IP, French and European patent attorney, currently Member ad personam of the SACEPO Working Party on Rules, Secretary of the French National Group of AIPPI. Specialised in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Has 27 years of experience as patent attorney, heavily focused on EPO opposition and appeal oral proceedings.


PihlajamaaHeli Pihlajamaa, FI, Director, Patent Law, Legal Affairs, EPO Munich. Assists in the creation of EPO policy by developing, strengthening and promoting the EPC, proposing legal changes and guaranteeing compliance of operations with patent law-related norms and case law. Advises senior EPO management on policy issues and legal amendments. Before joining the EPO, she worked in both the private and public sector in Finland.   


SpyroupolouEvangelia Spyropoulou, GR, Director, Operations, Mobility and Mechatronics, EPO Munich. Has many years of experience at the EPO, first as an examiner and now as Director Operations with particular focus on talent acquisition and development. Has been involved in a number of events on European and international co-operation. Evangelia worked at the EU Commission before joining the EPO.  

Top of page


Workshop 

Sufficiency of disclosure and enablement in pharmaceuticals

Field: substantive chemistry
Technical area: life sciences and chemistry

This lecture will explore issues surrounding sufficiency of disclosure in the field of pharmaceuticals and chemistry. A number of case studies will be used as the starting point for discussing the plausibility requirement and in particular whether and under which conditions an objection of insufficiency of disclosure can be overcome by submitting post-published evidence.

Considerations concerning the use of clinical trials as prior art, including when such clinical trials are considered to be enabled as well as the concept of additional technical teaching, will also be discussed. 

Shiri BuremaShiri Burema, NL, examiner, Team Targeted Drugs and Small Peptides, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO The Hague. Studied chemistry at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam (summa cum laude) and obtained a PhD with honours in chemistry from the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon. Prior to joining the EPO, she worked for almost six years as a Dutch and European Patent Attorney at a top-tier patent attorney firm, mostly dealing with EPO oppositions/appeals relating to second medical use. She was also active for the Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys. She is an EPO examiner in the field of targeted drugs since 2019 and a computer-implemented inventions expert for her directorate since 2020. Experience acting as second member in opposition proceedings. Passed the EQE in 2017. Passed the Dutch patent attorney qualification exams in 2017.

Langer Miren Langer, DE, examiner, Team Targeted Drugs and Small Peptides, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO The Hague. Studied pharmacy at the Philipps University of Marburg, University of Paris and University of Santiago de Compostela. Obtained a PhD in pharmacology from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Prior to joining the EPO, she worked for three years as a project manager (medical department) in the pharmaceutical industry. She is an EPO examiner in the field of second medical use and targeted drugs since 2006. Experience chairing and acting as first member in opposition proceedings. Passed the EQE in 2012. 


Top of page




Workshop 

Post-filing of experimental data and the burden of proof

Field: substantive chemistry
Technical area: industrial chemistry

The post-filing of experimental data, at the request of the EPO or on the applicant's own initiative, is a useful tool for shifting the burden of proof in examination/opposition proceedings.

In the first part, the burden of proof will be defined.Then, we will consider various situations that may arise after objections under Articles 83, 54 or 56 EPC have been raised, such as:

  • unusual parameters
  • measurement methods of parameters
  • product-by process claims
  • closing the gap with common general knowledge
  • enabling disclosures and implicit features

In the second part, the post-filing of experimental data will be analysed at various stages of the problem-solution approach used in inventive step argumentation to show where it can be beneficial for parties.

Interactive examples will follow in which scenarios are developed, with and without additional data, to underline the requirements for successful comparative tests.

LanconEveline Lançon, FR/DE, examiner, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO Munich. Member of the Opposition Directorate. Graduated in chemistry from Ludwig Maximilian University and the Technical University of Munich and has a "mastèr espécialisé" in business strategy and industrial marketing from EM Lyon Business School. Joined the EPO in 2005. Experience in opposition procedures, an expert in Asian documentation matters and a member of the Asia Patent Expert Group. Passed the EQE.


MarchandKarin Marchand, FR, examiner, Team Catalysis, EPO Munich. Holds engineering degrees from ESPCI Paris and the IFP School (ENSPM), with refining and chemical engineering as her major. Holds a master's in kinetics and catalysis and a PhD in in organic chemistry. Worked as a research engineer and project leader in the refining industry in France for ten years, designing new industrial catalysts and processes. Joined the EPO in 2010, obtained a CEIPI diploma (patents) in 2017 and passed the EQE in 2018.


Top of page



Workshop 

Product-by-process claims in additive manufacturing: pitfalls and remedies

Field: substantive chemistry
Technical area: materials processing

Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, is a disruptive technology enabling the production of items with various complex shapes from a wide range of different materials such as plastic, metals, ceramics and biomaterials. The applications of products made by additive manufacturing range from prosthetic implants to aerospace components. In the last five years the number of patent applications filed in this field has increased hugely, challenging patent prosecution on many aspects including clarity and product-by-process claims.

But what exactly is additive manufacturing? And what is 3D printing?

This workshop focuses on showing how Articles 84, 54and 56 EPC are applied during the examination of product-by-process claims involving additive manufacturing by:

  • explaining field-related terminology and providing information on how to avoid clarity objections owing to excessively broad claims
  • revealing how the novelty of products made by means of additive manufacturing is assessed
  • providing a list of pointers on non-obviousness

Real cases and relevant case law will be used to support the discussion and put the principles presented into practice.

MorraValentina Morra, IT, examiner, Health, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO The Hague. Studied chemistry at the University of Turin and completed a PhD in materials engineering at Delft University of Technology. Experience working as a researcher and project leader in the aluminium and aerospace industry. Joined the EPO in 2005 in the field of metallurgy, in particular additive manufacturing of metal objects. Chairperson in examination and opposition proceedings. Passed the EQE in 2016. Obtained the CEIPI Diploma on Patent Litigation in Europe from the University of Strasbourg in 2018.


PierreNathalie Pierre, FR, examiner/team manager, Mobility and Mechatronics, EPO The Hague. Graduated in plastic processing from the École des Mines de Douai in France. Obtained a PhD in plastic processing at Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University for plastics firm Plastic Omnium. Studied IP at CEIPI, Strasbourg. Joined the EPO in 2001 and works as a patent examiner in search, examination and opposition. Involved in several reclassification projects in the field of additive manufacturing (B29C67, B33Y and B29C64).


Top of page



Workshop 

Biomaterials: How does medical use affect examination?

Field: substantive chemistry
Technical area: medical technology

The field of biomaterials is growing rapidly (+800% in ten years) and covers materials from soft polymers (hydrogel, silicone) used for artificial organs and tissues to stiff materials with high mechanical strength properties (metal, ceramic, hard polymer) for orthopaedic implants, dental implants and stents, etc.

Applicants face challenges because they often draft either manufacturing claims which contain method-of-treatment steps (Article53(c) EPC) or claims relating to medical devices used in methods of treatment on the human or animal body (Articles 53(c) and 54(4), (5) EPC).

This workshop aims to:

  • give tips and suggestions on how to reformulate a claim containing method-of-treatment steps
  • explain the extent to which certain medical products could fall under the definition of a substance or composition in order to fulfil the criteria of novelty under Article 54(4), (5) EPC, i.e. the extent to which the claimed medical products are limited by their medical use

The presenters will review recent case law to highlight how to distinguish between substance/composition and medical devices.The examples will be restricted to medical devices such as stents, scaffolds for tissue engineering (for instance 3D printed scaffolds) and implants.

Van den BulckeHeidi Van den Bulcke, BE, examiner, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, Team Biomaterials, EPO The Hague. Studied life, science and technology at the universities of Leiden and Delft, followed by biomolecular sciences at Utrecht University. Joined the EPO in 2007 in the field of biomaterials, focusing on the biocompatibility or therapeutic effect of medical devices, implants and bandages. Also involved in examination and opposition proceedings in the field of galenics.


ChopinaudMarjorie Chopinaud, FR, examiner/team manager, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO Munich. Graduated in mechanical engineering in France, Germany, the USA and Switzerland. Joined the EPO in 2002 and works as a patent examiner in the field of medical technology. Teaches and gives presentations on IP protection and the EPO patent granting process at companies, national patent offices and universities. Actively involved in the European Inventor Award.


Top of page



Workshop 

Borderline cases in cosmetics

Field: substantive chemistry
Technical area: suitable for all technical areas

Claims directed to cosmetic uses and therapeutic uses in the field of cosmetics often overlap or are difficult to separate.

How are these cases in the field of cosmetics dealt with?

Is it possible to clearly distinguish between therapeutic and cosmetic applications for sunscreens, toothpastes, anti-ageing products and anti-microbial compositions?

This workshop will focus on the grey zone between therapeutic/non-therapeutic applications by using practical examples to provide an insight into how the EPO assesses compliance with Article 53(c) EPC in the field of cosmetics.

Durand-OralIlknur Durand-Oral, TR/FR, examiner, Team Cosmetics C, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry, EPO Munich. Studied food engineering at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Master's degree in organic chemistry from the Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse. Worked at an anti-infective research company in Basel before joining the EPO in 2008. Completed a Praktika Extern internship in 2018, with a focus on borderline cases in cosmetics for medical use indications. Instructor at the EPO Talent Academy.


EstanolInma Estañol, ES, examiner, Healthcare, Biotechnology and Chemistry and Opposition Directorate, EPO Munich. Pharmacologist, master's in food engineering and PhD in pharmacy/microbiology. Worked in R&D and as a director of quality and marketing in the food industry before joining the EPO in 1991. Active in working groups and as a CKT lecturer for harmonising the practice in borderline cases regarding second medical use in cosmetics, medical devices and food. Coach for examiners from national patent offices, national judges, patent attorneys as part of the Praktika Intern programme and newcomers to the EPO. IP expert representing the EPO in symposia and events related to the patentability of medical indications, post-granting procedures, the protection of traditional knowledge and the worldwide harmonisation of patent prosecution practices.


Top of page



Quick Navigation