![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Ronny Amirsehhi
Managing Partner
Leo Patent Law Office
Ronny Amirsehhi is Managing Partner with Leo Patent Law Office. Ronny is admitted before the European Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Unified Patent Court. He concentrates his practice on both U.S. and European patent prosecution, UPC invalidity proceedings, and EPO opposition and appeal proceedings.
He served a clerkship with the honorable Randall Rader, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ronny started his patent law career in New York at Kenyon & Kenyon. He further developed his knowledge and expertise at various international law firms in Europe.
Ronny received his diploma in Patent Litigation in Europe from CEIPI and his Master of Laws degree in Intellectual Property Law from Munich Intellectual Property Law Center partnering with the Max Planck Institute and the George Washington University Law School. He studied biomedical engineering at University of California-San Diego where he was recognized as top 1% student in the nation and for his research on biophysical properties of blood substituents.
Additionally, Ronny has gained and is gaining knowledge of Quantum Computing, Machine Learning, and Cryptography by studying at continuing education programs. Ronny is currently master of science candidate in Quantum Computer technology.
Recent Articles by Ronny Amirsehhi
Interveners Left Out in the Cold: EPO’s G 2/24 Tightens Rules for Late Parties to Patent Challenges
In September 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), the highest judicial authority of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued its decision in G 2/24. The EBA addressed a procedural question: if a third party (an “intervener”) joins an ongoing appeal, can that party keep the case alive if all the original appellants withdraw? The EBA’s answer was a no. In other words, interveners play only a supporting role in appeal proceedings. They may join an existing appeal, but they cannot take over once the main participants have left the stage.
EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Brings On-Sale Bar Doctrine Closer to United States’
In its decision of July 2, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office in G 1/23 introduced a shift in European patent law’s treatment of publicly available products, especially where their composition is not fully disclosed or reproducible. G 1/23 has broad implications for patent practitioners across all technical fields, as it reshapes the boundaries of what constitutes prior art under the European Patent Convention and affects how publicly available products, product descriptions, and marketing materials, are assessed in determining novelty and inventive step.
Pharma Playbook: What Practitioners Can Learn from Early UPC Litigation
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has quickly become an important forum for pharmaceutical and biotech patent disputes in Europe. In 2024 and early 2025, a consistent theme has been the interplay between UPC proceedings and existing venues like European Patent Office (EPO) oppositions and national courts. Innovators and generic or biosimilar companies are now coordinating multi-front strategies engaging the UPC for pan-European relief while leveraging EPO opposition and selecting national litigations.
UPC vs. EPO Oppositions: Lessons from Recent UPC Case Law
A European Patent Office (EPO) opposition is often the first line of defense for a party seeking to invalidate a European patent. Oppositions must be filed within nine months of the patent’s grant, and they offer a centralized way to revoke or limit the patent in all designated states. With the Unified Patent Ccourt (UPC) now providing a parallel central revocation mechanism (with no deadline) for UPC member states, it was inevitable that some patents would face both an EPO opposition and a UPC revocation/infringement action at the same time. The interplay between these proceedings has quickly become a critical issue, raising questions of stays, inconsistent outcomes, and tactical timing. Case law from 2024–2025 illustrates how the UPC and parties are managing double-tracked disputes.