Appeal case T 0392/25 relates to an augmented reality (AR) for a construction vehicle windscreen. Although the claim at stake is lengthy, the case essentially boils down to the questions whether the disclosure that (A) "a location of an attribute [to be displayed on the windscreen of the vehicle] can be designated to prevent occlusion of an object" and that (B) "[a] luminosity and/or a transparency of an attribute image can also be adjusted to prevent obstruction […]" form two separate embodiments, i.e. A or B, an embodiment with both features, i.e. A and B, or a combination of both, i.e. A and/or B.

One of the better known AI cases at the European Patent Office was Vesuvius vs. Refractory (T 1669/21), in which the Board of Appeals concluded that Refractory's patent fell short of the enablement requirement of Art. 83 EPC and had to be revoked. This case created quite a reaction, with many blog posts arguing that a number of details that AI patents need to disclose can be deduced from this decision.

In the case underlying the decision T 0561/23, the Opposition Division came to the conclusion that several auxiliary requests submitted during opposition proceedings are not complying with the requirements of Rule 80 EPC.

Das Berufungsgericht des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts stärkt Patentinhaber bei UI‑bezogenen Erfindungen (UI; User‑Interface) und einstweiligen Verfügungen.

Mit Order vom 17. April 2026 (UPC_CoA_901/2025) hat das Berufungsgericht des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts die erstinstanzliche Entscheidung der Lokalkammer Den Haag aufgehoben und zugunsten der Patentinhaberin Abbott eine einstweilige Verfügung erlassen.

Der Fall betrifft ein Einheitspatent im Bereich der kontinuierlichen Glukosemessung (CGM) und ist aus mehreren Gründen von erheblicher praktischer Relevanz.

The following provides a summary of the very recent decision T 0610/24, in which the Board of Appeal examined the criteria for selecting an appropriate starting point when assessing inventive step under the problem-solution approach. In particular, it clarifies the circumstances in which a prior‑art document can be regarded as a suitable starting point and how this selection influences the subsequent obviousness analysis.