Differences between European and U.S. patent doctrines in areas such as inventive step/non obviousness, sufficiency/enablement and the treatment of plausibility/written description create significant strategic complexity for companies seeking to secure or challenge patent protection globally. For IP teams, the challenge lies not only in understanding how different jurisdictions approach core aspects of patentability in isolation, but also in assessing how contrasting approaches shape the coordination of prosecution and litigation strategy across international markets.
This multi-jurisdictional compare-and-contrast session will analyse diverging European and USPTO approaches to patentability, and examine how legal teams can adapt patent drafting and broader portfolio management strategies in response.
- What are the most consequential points of divergence between European and USPTO approaches to inventive step/non-obviousness and sufficiency/enablement?
- Is plausibility in Europe becoming a higher hurdle than U.S. written description and enablement, or are the two systems beginning to converge in these respects?
- How do contrasting approaches to patentability shape how originator and generic companies approach opposition and litigation strategies in each jurisdiction?
- What do doctrinal differences mean for how legal teams coordinate patent drafting, prosecution and post-grant strategy, including the use of PTAB proceedings, across the U.S. and Europe?