G 2/08

Last updated
G 2/08
Scale of justice 2.svg

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office

Contents

ECLI:EP:BA:2010:G000208.20100219
Decision issued on 19 February 2010
Board composition
Chairman: Peter Messerli
Members: P. Alting van Geusau, J.-P. Seitz, B. Günzel, U. Kinkeldey, S. Nathanael, B. Schachenmann
Headwords
Dosage regime/ABBOTT RESPIRATORY

G 2/08 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 19 February 2010. The decision deals with the patentability of medications. More specifically, the decision deals with claims directed to second medical use. [1] Second medical use claims pertain to medications to be used for particular conditions or diseases. In the case at issue, the second medical use pertains to a new dosage regime of a known substance.

The questions

The three questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal were:

(1) Where it is already known to use a particular medicament to treat a particular illness, can this known medicament be patented under the provisions of Article 53(c) EPC and Article 54(5) EPC for use in a different, new and inventive treatment by therapy of the same illness?

(2) If the answer to question 1 is yes, is such patenting also possible where the only novel feature of the treatment is a new and inventive dosage regime?

(3) Are any special considerations applicable when interpreting and applying Article 53(c) EPC and Article 54(5) EPC?

Answers to the referred questions

The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered these questions as follows:

(1) Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness.

(2) Such patenting is also not excluded where a dosage regime is the only feature claimed which is not comprised in the state of the art.

(3) Where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83. A time-limit of three months after publication of the present decision in the Official Journal of the European Patent Office is set in order that future applicants comply with this new situation.

The first two answers mean that a new dosage regime of a drug can render patent claims novel and inventive. A patent having such claims may be granted provided the other requirements of the European Patent Convention are met. More specifically, the Enlarged Board of Appeal approved the following specific uses of known medications:

Swiss-type claims were introduced in decision G 5/83, but the EPC 2000 removed the cause of that approach. The third answer means that European patents having Swiss-type claims cease. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

The patentability of software, computer programs and computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is patentable under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973. The subject also includes the question of whether European patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in these fields (sometimes called "software patents") are regarded as valid by national courts.

In patent law, industrial design law, and trademark law, a priority right or right of priority is a time-limited right, triggered by the first filing of an application for a patent, an industrial design or a trademark respectively. The priority right allows the claimant to file a subsequent application in another country for the same invention, design, or trademark effective as of the date of filing the first application. When filing the subsequent application, the applicant must claim the priority of the first application in order to make use of the right of priority. The right of priority belongs to the applicant or his successor in title.

The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the European Patent Office (EPO). For instance, a decision of an Examining Division refusing to grant a European patent application may be appealed by the applicant. The appeal procedure before the European Patent Office is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.

A divisional patent application, also called divisional application or simply divisional, is a type of patent application that contains subject-matter from a previously filed application, the previously filed application being its parent application. While a divisional application is filed later than the parent application, it retains its parent's filing date, and will generally claim the same priority. Divisional applications are generally used in cases where the parent application may lack unity of invention; that is, the parent application describes more than one invention and the applicant is required to split the parent into one or more divisional applications each claiming only a single invention. The ability to file divisional applications in cases of lack of unity of invention is required by Article 4G of the Paris Convention.

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries provide that certain subject-matter is excluded from patentability, even if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, which differ from country to country, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

G 1/03 and G 2/03 are two decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which were both issued on April 8, 2004.

T 931/95, commonly known as Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on September 8, 2000. At the time, it was a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) but has now largely been superseded by the decisions in T 641/00 and T 258/03.

T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) which built on the principles suggested by the same Board in T 641/00. This decision, amongst others, but notably this one and T 641/00, significantly affected the assessment of an invention’s technical character and inventive step.

<i>Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd</i>

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.

T 1173/97, also known as Computer program product/IBM or simply Computer program product, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on July 1, 1998. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and whether computer programs are excluded from patentability under the EPC.

Article 123 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the amendments under the EPC, i.e. the amendments to a European patent application or patent, and notably the conditions under which they are allowable. In particular, Article 123(2) EPC prohibits adding subject-matter beyond the content of the application as filed, while Article 123(3) EPC prohibits an extension of the scope of protection by amendment after grant.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia involve an inventive step. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the inventive step under the EPC, is Article 56 EPC. That is, an invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) have developed an approach, called the "problem-and-solution approach", to assess whether an invention involves an inventive step.

Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia are new. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the novelty under the EPC, is Article 54 EPC. Namely, "an invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of Article 54(1) EPC is to prevent the state of the art being patented again."

G 1/07 is a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was issued on February 15, 2010. The Enlarged Board of Appeal notably decided that, under the European Patent Convention (EPC),

G 2/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 16 July 2019, which deals with three legal questions, the third relating to whether oral proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal may be held in Haar in the Munich district rather than in Munich per se, when a party objects to the oral proceedings being held in Haar. In July 2019, the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal may be held in Haar without infringing Article 113(1) EPC and Article 116(1) EPC.

G 1/10 is a decision issued on 23 July 2012 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that Rule 140 EPC cannot be used to request corrections of the text of a European patent.

G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 are landmark decisions issued on 5 December 1984 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on the patentability of second or further medical use of a known substance or composition. They deal with patent claims directed to such second or subsequent medical use, and, as explained in reason 22 of decision G 5/83, the Enlarged Board held that patent claims directed to such substances or compositions were allowable under the European Patent Convention (EPC) when worded as purpose-limited product claims, which are also referred to as "Swiss-type use claims". These decisions are the first decisions issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

References

  1. ↑ Margarete Singer, Romuald Singer, Dieter Stauder, Stefan Luginbühl, Europäisches Patentübereinkommen, Article 54 EPC, point 95, page 230, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2010.
  2. ↑ Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew John Rudge, VISSER'S ANNOTATED EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION, Article 54(5) EPC, chapter 2.1, page 102, Wolters Kluwer, 2022.
  3. ↑ Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew John Rudge, VISSER'S ANNOTATED EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION, Article 54(5) EPC, chapter 2.3, page 103, Wolters Kluwer, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.