Helping Universities Navigate Europe’s New Patent Landscape with Dr. Rose Hughes

When cutting‑edge science collides with the realities of commercialization, tech transfer stops being paperwork and starts shaping the future of innovation. That intersection is exactly where European patent attorney and IPKat writer Rose Hughes has built her career, and today she’s here to break down what the latest headline decisions mean for anyone navigating patents on this side of the Atlantic. 

Dr. Hughes traces her journey from a PhD in infection‑immunity at University College London to training with Marks & Clerk, six years in‑house at AstraZeneca’s Cambridge R&D hub, and now a role at boutique firm Evolve, all while sharpening her public voice through IPKat’s mentored blogging model. In our conversation, Dr. Hughes unpacks the Enlarged Board’s looming opinion on reading claims in light of the description and why a Philip Morris case shows the hidden danger of boiler‑plate definitions. 

She explains G 2/21’s guidance on post‑field data using a polymorph dispute where vague promises of stability fell short, and she highlights how the UPC’s early Abbott v Sibio ruling suggests Europe’s new patent court is echoing EPO practice on functional language and added‑matter tests. We also dig into an Amgen peptide‑manufacturing opposition that weighs patent protection against trade secrets, and a recent Board decision where an AI‑driven cell‑analysis method collapsed for lack of technical character and data support.

Dr. Hughes offers practical takeaways for university Tech‑Transfer offices from timing filings to fast‑moving science and preparing for AI tools that may automate drudge work but not strategic thinking. Along with candid advice for newcomers on following the science you love and using AI to focus on high‑value patent strategy.

In This Episode:

[05:16]  Dr. Hughes explains how launching the IPKat blog let her break down complex patent cases, deepen her own understanding, and build a go‑to resource for the European IP community.

[08:22] We learn about some interesting cases that Dr Hughes has worked on recently. 

[09:33] The best IP is going to be grounded in the most exciting and innovative science.

[10:06] We discuss some Enlarged Board of Appeals decisions and opinions about descriptions including the Philip Morris tobacco case.

[13:05] Her advice is to be aware of boilerplate definitions. Also watch out for AI definitions.

[15:15]  A deep dive into the Polymorph Patents ruling. 

[16:18] The Board of Appeal applying G2/21 said that you can use post-published data, but you can't just base it on sweeping statements in your application. Connect your features with how they are solving a problem.

[17:43 ] Insights on the UPC’s Abbott  decision.The new court is likely to follow EPO precedent on added‑matter and claim interpretation.

[20:27]  Dr. Hughes talks about an Amgen peptide manufacturing‑method case. 

[23:47]  A recent Board ruling on AI‑enabled cell‑therapy which uses AI to analyze the cell. (T 0660/22, Cell analysis/NIKON)

[26:27]  There will be an increased use of AI tools and there will be challenges with how this is handled. 

[00:29:08] How tech transfer offices should approach European patent practice. There are significant differences between the two.

[30:19]  The gap in antibody claim scope between the US and Europe is widening. 

[32:07] Predictions for trends and changes that could impact European patent practice and tech transfer in the next few years.

[34:16] Advice for new patent attorneys and agents that are entering the field. Focus on the science that you are interested in. Gain as many dif