Insights

Washington – June 6, 2024: Crowell & Moring earned 78 rankings for 67 lawyers, as well as 41 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2024 guide. The rankings are driven by independent interviews of clients and lawyers at peer firms.

Brussels and Doha – April 1, 2024: The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) 2024 edition has recognized 16 practice areas and 11 lawyers in Crowell & Moring’s Brussels and Doha offices. The 11 individual lawyers received 18 total rankings across the 16 different practice areas.

Washington – January 11, 2023: Crowell & Moring has published Litigation Forecast 2023: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year. The 11th-annual Litigation Forecast focuses on trends in litigation that are playing out in specific jurisdictions around the globe. 

At the European Patent Office (EPO), a recent referral of case T 873/24 from the Technical Board to the Enlarged Board of Appeal may clarify whether last summer’s decision in case G 1/24 on claim interpretation may be extended to the analysis of Added Subject-Matter. Already G 1/24 is impacting the assessment of patentability at the EPO, but should this referral be allowed, G 1/24’s effect on the assessment of added matter could result in a real shake up of the EPO’s notoriously strict assessment of support. Nonetheless, a review of how we got here highlights the value of late arguments during the EPO appeal process.

[1] In a recent development, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability due to being a computer program “as such.” In doing so, the Court set out the framework of a new test for the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use when evaluating the patentability of computer. The ruling breaks down barriers to the patenting of AI algorithms in the UK and paves the way for a wider change in the UK IPO’s approach to assessing excluded subject matter.

For the past few years since its official launch, as well as getting to grips with the developing procedures and case law of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), representatives have been using the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) in its first iteration.