Patents and plausibility.

Paul England is a Senior Associate with TaylorWessing, based in their London offices.The AgrEvo authority, as read in the light of the language of John Hopkins, crystallises the principle that to be patentable claims must make a technical contribution which is at least plausible. In the EPO, AgrEvo concerns obviousness and this is the context in which it first appears in the English authorities, in Conor Medsystems. Since then, plausibility of technical contribution has spread in application in English cases to selection inventions, industrial applicability and insufficiency.In five years, the requirement to provide a plausible technical contribution has in effect become a common denominator, or base-line, of patentability in English patent law. This is a widespread realignment of English principles with the case law of the TBA. In the area of obviousness, lack of plausibility is also effectively an independent ground of attack that, if successful, by-passes the need to address obviousness in the orthodox manner. Similarly, a claim may now be held insufficient without the need to consider whether performing its disclosure requires an undue burden.The quick and widespread introduction of the EPO mindset that AgrEvo has brought with it may prove to be a matter of lasting importance as the project to converge patent law in the UPC begins. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]