In collaboration with Umeå Biotech Incubator, Potter Clarkson takes part in a webinar on how researchers can tell the difference between an idea and a patentable invention.

In many technical fields, patents play an important role in turning academic research into practical outcomes. However, it is not always easy to tell the difference between an early idea and an invention that meets the legal requirements for patent protection.

In this session, four patent attorneys from Potter Clarkson, share practical insights based on their experience across different areas of technology. They explain how patentability is assessed from a legal point of view and how researchers can judge whether their work may be suitable for patent protection.

The discussion focuses in particular on evidence requirements. The type of data needed to support a patent application, and how much is required, varies widely between technical fields. Through practical examples, the speakers show why a small number of drawings may be enough in some cases, while in others even extensive experimental work or an entire thesis may not be sufficient.

The webinar also looks at current questions around data generated using AI, including how this type of data is viewed in patent applications and what researchers should consider when using it. In addition, the speakers explain what can safely be published once a patent application has been filed, using real examples to highlight good practice as well as common mistakes.

This session is aimed at researchers across all technical disciplines, particularly those who are working with, or expect to generate, results that may be suitable for patent protection.

Sign up and find more information here.

Combination therapies: IP considerations for synergistic biologic products

Combination therapies: IP considerations for synergistic biologic products

Perfect storm – four drivers behind the mRNA litigation wave

Perfect storm – four drivers behind the mRNA litigation wave

Patent landscape and freedom-to-operate analysis for RNA-based therapies: identifying IP risks early

Patent landscape and freedom-to-operate analysis for RNA-based therapies: identifying IP risks early

Kodak v FujiFilm: the Court of Appeal confirms UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction

Kodak v FujiFilm: the Court of Appeal confirms UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction

Comparing EPC Article 53(a) and US patent law in gene editing ethics

Comparing EPC Article 53(a) and US patent law in gene editing ethics

EPO Board of Appeal refers claim interpretation and added matter questions

EPO Board of Appeal refers claim interpretation and added matter questions

Creating an effective IP strategy for CAR-T

Creating an effective IP strategy for CAR-T

When is a synbio company a gene therapy company?

When is a synbio company a gene therapy company?

See All News