Of course, an invention needs to be “novel” to be patentable. But does any difference over the prior art do the trick? Or does there have to be a technically relevant difference? I sat down with Patrick Heckeler to discuss a recent EPO decision involving that question.
Patrick’s profile 👉 https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-patrick-heckeler/
This is a recording of a talk on Clubhouse. Shout-outs go to the panelists who spontaneously made great contributions:
- Martin Wilming 👉 https://www.linkedin.com/in/mwilming/
- Barış Atalay 👉 https://www.linkedin.com/in/bar%C4%B1%C5%9F-atalay-86a14a22/
- Preston Richard 👉 https://www.linkedin.com/in/prestonrichard/
Next European Software Patents Talk on clubhouse: https://www.joinclubhouse.com/event/mJzA6Rzo
Video version on YouTube
You can watch the video version on YouTube or listen to the audio-only version on your favorite podcast platform.
Links mentioned in this episode
- Article “Checking whether a resource is likely to be available when a corresponding request is serviced: non-technical”
- T 0552/14 (Queue message/TICKETMASTER)
I’m excited for your feedback. Let me know in the comments if you found value in this information!
Talk to you soon,
Bastian
P.S. To get notified when I upload a new episode, get on my private email list.
