Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Find a professional representative
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • Professional hub
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by area by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Patent filings
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Detailed methodology
            • Archive
          • Online Services
          • Patent information
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Innovation process survey
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Website
          • Survey on electronic invoicing
          • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
        • Culture Space A&T 5-10
          • Go back
          • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
            • Go back
            • aqua_forensic
            • LIMINAL
            • MaterialLab
            • Perfect Sleep
            • Proof of Work
            • TerraPort
            • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
            • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • The European Patent Journey
          • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
          • Next generation statements
          • Open storage
          • Cosmic bar
        • Lange Nacht 2023
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the Observatory
      • Our activities
      • Our topics
      • Our partners and networks
      • Digital library
      • Data desk
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t010486eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0486/01 (IGF-1/GENENTECH, INC., et al) 03-09-2003
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0486/01 (IGF-1/GENENTECH, INC., et al) 03-09-2003

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T048601.20030903
Date of decision
03 September 2003
Case number
T 0486/01
Petition for review of
-
Application number
92917908.3
IPC class
A61K 38/30
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 47.35 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

IGF-1 to improve the neural condition

Applicant name
GENENTECH, INC., et al
Opponent name
Cephalon, Inc.
Board
3.3.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 88(3) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Keywords

Main request and auxiliary request 1 - novelty (no) - further medical use (no)

Auxiliary requests 2 and 3 - inventive step (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0005/83
G 0279/93
T 0254/93
T 0892/94
T 0189/95
T 0019/86
T 0893/90
Citing decisions
T 1020/03
T 0836/01
T 0708/02
T 1020/03
T 1020/03
T 1955/09
T 0177/16
T 1020/03
T 0433/11
T 0779/18

I. The appeal is against the decision of the opposition division revoking European patent No. 0 597 033 (application No. 92 917 908.3) filed on 3 August 1992 and claiming priority from NZ 239211 of 1 August 1991 (document (P)), which had been opposed by the respondent (opponent) on the grounds of Articles 100(a) (Articles 54 and 56) and 100(b) EPC. The patent relates to IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) to improve the neural condition. Independent claim 1 as granted read as follows:

"1. The use of IGF-1 and/or a biologically active analogue of IGF-1 in the manufacture of a medicament for treating central nervous system injury affecting glia or other non-cholinergic cells."

Claims 2 to 13 related to specific embodiments of the medical use of claim 1.

II. The reasons given for the refusal were that claim 1 of the main and third auxiliary requests lacked novelty, while claim 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests did not involve an inventive step.

III. With the Grounds of Appeal the appellant filed a new Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 to 3, of which independent claim 1 read as follows:

Main Request

"1. The use of IGF-1 and/or a biologically active analogue of IGF-1 in the manufacture of a medicament for use in reducing the loss of glial cells or non- cholinergic neuronal cells suffered after a CNS insult."

Auxiliary Request 1

"1. The use of IGF-1 and/or a biologically active analogue of IGF-1 in the manufacture of a medicament for use in reducing the loss of glial cells suffered after a CNS insult."

Auxiliary Request 2

"1. The use of IGF-1 and/or a biologically active analogue of IGF-1 in the manufacture of a medicament for use in treating a CNS injury affecting glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells and being the consequence of multiple sclerosis."

Auxiliary Request 3

"1. The use of IGF-1 and/or a biologically active analogue of IGF-1 in the manufacture of a medicament for use in reducing the loss of glial cells or non- cholinergic neuronal cells suffered as a consequence of multiple sclerosis.".

IV. Oral proceedings were held on 3 September 2003.

V. The following documents are cited in the present decision:

(C5) Principles of Neural Sciences, edited by E.R Kandel, J.H. Schwartz and T.M. Jessell, Appleton & Lange, Norwalk, Connecticut, pages 244 to 257, 531 to 547, 609 to 625, 647 to 659, 711 to 730, 777 to 791, 974 to 986 and 1041 to 1049, third Edition 1991;

(C15) McMorris F.A. et al., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 605, pages 101 to 109 (1990);

(C16) McMorris F.A. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 83, pages 822 to 826 (February 1986);

(C17) WO-A-90/14838;

(C18) Mozell R.L. et al., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 540, pages 430 to 432 (1988);

(C37) Gluckman P. et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., Vol. 182, No. 2, pages 593 to 599 (31 January 1992);

(C38) Barres B.A. et al., Cell, Vol. 70, pages 31 to 46 (10 July 1992);

(C41) McMorris F.A. et al., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 692, pages 321 to 334 (1993);

(C42) Knusel B. et al., J. Neurosci., Vol. 10, No. 2, pages 558 to 570 (1990).

VI. The submissions by the appellant can be summarized as follows:

Main Request and Auxiliary Request 1

Added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC)

- In claim 1 of the Main Request the wording "reducing the loss of glial cells or non- cholinergic neuronal cells" (emphasis by the board) was based on the application as filed, wherein glial cells and non-cholinergic neuronal cells were presented as alternative targets (see claim 1 of the published PCT application as filed: "glia or other non-cholinergic cells"; see also claims 5 and 6 thereof).

Right to priority (Article 88(3) EPC)

- Page 19, lines 12 to 13 ("neuronal loss was reduced") of priority document (P) (see Section I above) provided support for the entitlement of the IGF-1-based medical use of claim 1 of both requests to priority rights. A further support could be derived from page 19, lines 18 to 19 ("therapy reduced the neuronal death"), the tables on pages 20 and 21 (Experiments A and B), Figure 1D and its counterpart on page 14, lines 16 to 18 ("Astrocyte-like cells... express IGF-1 after insult").

Novelty (Article 54 EPC)

- The medical use of claim 1 did not relate to the treatment of a central nervous system (CNS) disease with IGF-1 but rather to reducing (cf "rescue"), by means of IGF-1, the loss of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells (Main Request) or of glial cells (Auxiliary Request 1) after a CNS insult, such as eg Parkinson's disease. Even if the practical means of realisation were the same as in the prior art (document (C17)), the therapeutic effect ("rescue of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells after a CNS insult") was a functional feature which established novelty over the IGF-1-based medical treatment of central nervous system (CNS) diseases disclosed by document (C17), which described no such survival of glial/cholinergic cells.

- The above interpretation was supported by the experimental data in Experiment B of the patent in suit (see also page 5, lines 9ff), which showed that IGF-1 substantially reduced glial cell and non-cholinergic neuronal cell loss after a CNS insult.

- The skilled person would not take the teaching of document (C17) seriously, since it prescribed, for healing Parkinson's disease, the rescue of cholinergic neuronal cells (see page 8, central paragraph). However, this went against the teaching of document (C5), according to which the target cells to be rescued when treating Parkinson's disease should be the dopaminergic neuronal cells and, moreover, this disease had to be treated with anticholinergic agents (see page 654).

Article 52(4) EPC

- Since claims 8 to 10 were dependent on claim 1, drafted according to an acceptable second/further medical use format, they could not relate to methods of treatment excluded from patentability by the provisions of the above Article.

Auxiliary Requests 2 and 3

Added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC)

- The term "or" in claim 1 of the Auxiliary Request 3 did not represent added subject-matter (see Main Request).

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

- Documents (C15), (C16) and (C18) did not suggest a cure for treating MS. In fact, the experiments disclosed in these documents involved a transgenic mouse which was no acceptable model of remyelination. Further, these experiments merely showed the increase of myelin and of the number of oligodendrocytes in vitro. However, proliferation/stimulation of neuronal/glial cells by IGF-1 was not predictive of any in vivo activity of IGF-1 upon the enhancement of survival of glial/neuronal cells.

- This view was supported by post-published document (C41). The authors of this document (see page 330, first full paragraph) expressed their surprise that the in vivo tests achieved so little difference in oligodendrocyte number between the control and the experiment, contrary to their expectations from the in vitro tests. Document (C41) provided an explanation of their surprising result, which explanation lay with the substantial differences between the in vitro and the in vivo experiments performed so far. In the in vitro tests of documents (C15), (C16) and (C18), the controls were performed in a serum-free medium in the absence of IGF-1 (condition of IGF-1 depletion) and the experiments were made under condition of IGF-1 restoration. In the in vivo experiments, however, the controls were normal mice expressing normal IGF-1 levels in the brain and the experimental conditions were ones of IGF-1 excess.

- As for document (C37), it discussed neuronal cell rescue in conjunction with endogenous IGF-1 and without identifying either non-cholinergic neurons or glial cells. The document used on page 598 a very cautious language "IGF-1 may have therapeutic potential".

- Document (C42) merely reported on the neurotrophic action (differentiation and proliferation) of IGF-1 on cholinergic and dopaminergic neurons in culture. Differentiation and proliferation in vitro of developing neurons, however, had nothing to do with rescue of injured mature neuronal cells in vivo.

- Document (C38) was irrelevant because it dealt with in vitro studies upon the proliferation/stimulation on immature rat cells, wherein cell death (apoptosis) still occurred.

VII. The submissions by the respondent can be summarized as follows:

Main Request and Auxiliary Request 1

Added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC)

- The "or" in claim 1 of the main request ("for treating central nervous system injury affecting glial or other non-cholinergic cells") found no basis in the application as filed, wherein the expression read "loss of glial and other non- cholinergic cells" (see page 3, line 22 of the published PCT application as filed).

Right to priority (Article 88(3) EPC)

- Priority document (P) taught that IGF-1 healed a CNS injury by "reducing neuronal loss" in general (see eg page 19, lines 12 to 13). The medical use of claim 1 of both requests did not differ from the teaching of document (P). The reference to the mechanism of action being to IGF-1 healing CNS injury caused by "the loss of glial cells or non- cholinergic neuronal cells" (Main Request) or "the loss of glial cells" (Auxiliary Request 1), which mechanism of action was not disclosed in the priority document (P), was irrelevant to the subject matter of claim 1 of both requests, so these were thus entitled to priority.

Novelty

- According to decisions T 279/93 of 12 December 1996 and T 254/93 (OJ EPO 1998, 285), merely providing the previously unknown mechanism of action of a known compound/composition used for obtaining a known effect or in a known medical treatment, could not confer novelty. Therefore, the claims related to the medical use of IGF-1 in the treatment of a CNS insult, as the wording "reducing the loss of glial cells or non- cholinergic neuronal cells" was the mere explanation of the mechanism of action of IGF-1.

- However, document (C17) already disclosed the use of IGF-1 in the treatment of a CNS insult (see eg page 8, lines 26 to 33). Even if the claims were directed to "reducing the loss of non-cholinergic neuronal cells", document (C17) clearly disclosed the rescue of neuronal cells (see page 6, line 19).

Article 52(4) EPC

- Claims 8 to 10 related to methods of treatment excluded from patentability by the provisions of the above Article.

Auxiliary Requests 2 and 3

Added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC)

- The term "or" in claim 1 of the Auxiliary Request 3. represented added subject-matter (see Main Request).

Right to priority (Article 88(3) EPC)

- Priority could not be claimed as multiple sclerosis (MS) was not mentioned in the priority document.

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

- The subject-matter of the claims was obvious in view of document (C15), which taught that IGF-1 was a potent inducer of oligodendrocyte development and myelination (see page 105, end of first full paragraph), a process underlying the healing of demyelinating disorders and thus MS (see page 101, end of first paragraph). Documents (C16) and (C18) further confirmed IGF-1's effect of regenerating oligodendrocytes.

- Document (C37) was the publication by the authors of the patent in suit of experimental results, according to which IGF-1 reduced neuronal loss. In fact, the results obtained in the patent merely confirmed the results presented in document (C42), according to which IGF-1 had neuron protective activity (see page 8, line 58 to page 9, line 1 of the patent in suit).

- Document (C38) concluded on page 38, r-h column, first full paragraph that "IGF-1 and IGF-2 promote the survival of O-2A progenitor cells and oligodendrocytes" (the latter being glial cells). Page 32 thereof related to cell survival, not proliferation.

- Taken together or separately, these documents provided a clear teaching that IGF-1 could be used to rescue glia and non-cholinergic neurons in MS.

- Document (D41) being post-published, could not be used in the issue of the inventive step.

VIII. The appellant (patentee) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the Main Request or one of Auxiliary Requests 1 to 3, all submitted on 10 July 2001.

The respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be dismissed.

1. The appeal is admissible

Main Request and Auxiliary Request 1

Article 123(2) EPC

2. According to claim 1 of the published PCT application as filed ("glia or other non-cholinergic cells"; see also claims 5 and 6 thereof; emphasis by the board), the property by IGF-1 of exerting its loss-preventing activity occurs on both glial and non-cholinergic neuronal cells, either taken together ("and") or taken alone ("or"). The wording "or" in claim 1 of the main request thus does not infringe Article 123(2) EPC.

Right to priority

3. Priority document (P) teaches a medical use of IGF-1, namely that IGF-1 heals CNS injuries by "reducing neuronal loss" (see eg page 19, lines 12 to 13; see also ibidem, lines 18 to 19: "therapy reduced the neuronal death"). The subject-matter of claim 1 of both requests, worded in the form of second/further medical indications (see G 5/83, OJ EPO 1985, 64) differs therefrom in that the "neuronal loss" has been replaced with "the loss of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells" (Main Request) or "the loss of glial cells" (Auxiliary Request 1).

4. As explained in detail in points 5 to 12 infra in connection with the issue of novelty, the features "the loss of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells" (claim 1 of the Main Request) or "the loss of glial cells" (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 1) do not confer novelty on the claimed medical use vis-à-vis any IGF-1-based treatment of a CNS injury, ie these features are ineffective for the board to consider the medical uses now claimed as novel (further) medical applications.

5. By implication, the claimed medical uses also do not go beyond, in terms of essential technical features, the medical use already disclosed in priority document (P), namely the treatment by IGF-1 of a CNS injury by "reducing neuronal loss". In conclusion, the subject matter of the claims of both requests is entitled to priority.

Novelty

6. The use of IGF-1 in the preparation of a medicament for use in the treatment of a CNS insult has already been proposed. Document (C17) indeed discloses such an application of IGF-1 in the treatment of eg Parkinson's disease (see eg page 8, lines 26 to 33). The mechanism of action underlying this therapeutic effect is, inter alia, the rescue by IGF-1 of neuronal cells, preferably non-mitotic neuronal cells and/or cholinergic neuronal cells (see page 6, lines 18 to 21). Claim 1 of both the Main Request and Auxiliary Request I are worded accordingly in the form suggested by the Enlarged Board of Appeal when more particularly considering the so-called second medical indication (see G 5/83, OJ EPO 1985, 64, point 9, 65), i.e. cases in which the medicament (IGF-1) of the claimed use is no different from a known medicament.

7. In its decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that, provided the medicament is for a specified new and inventive application, "the required novelty for the medicament which forms the subject-matter of the claim is derived from the new pharmaceutical use" (ibidem, points 21 to 23). Consequently, the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 of both requests is intimately linked to whether the newly discovered effects "reducing the loss of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells" (claim 1 of the Main Request) or "reducing the loss of glial cells" (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 1) can confer novelty on the claims vis-à-vis the known medical use disclosed by document (C17).

8. However, it must be pointed out that a new property of a known substance or a new technical effect achieved by a known molecule do not necessarily translate into a novel use (be it medical or otherwise) of that substance/ molecule (see eg decisions T 892/94, OJ EPO 2000, 1 and T 189/95 of 29 February 2000, both relating to the medical field). For a medicinal application to be construed as a "further medical use", this new technical effect would have to lead to a truly new therapeutic application, such as the healing of a different pathology or the treatment of the same disease with the same compound, however, when carried out on a new group of subjects distinguishable from the previously suggested subjects for such treatment (see eg T 19/86, OJ EPO 1989, 24).

9. Turning to the present situation, the appellant relied heavily during the proceedings, as novel features, on the target cells to be rescued by IGF-1, namely glial cells and non-cholinergic neuronal cells (claim 1 of the Main Request) or glial cells (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 1), in contrast to the medical use disclosed in document (C17), based on rescuing neuronal cells in general, preferably non-mitotic neuronal cells and/or cholinergic neuronal cells.

10. As for the question of whether the claimed medical uses are directed to the treatment of new pathologies, such as eg a kind of "glial cell-dependent Parkinson's disease" or a "non- cholinergic neural cell-dependent Parkinson's disease", there is no evidence before the board that there exists such CNS injuries which affects only glia or non-cholinergic neurons, while leaving other populations of CNS cells unscathed. The appellant's admission that "CNS insults such as Parkinson's disease represent quite complex physiological phenomena whose therapy certainly cannot be narrowed to the rescue of glial cells or non-cholinergic neuronal cells" (see submission dated 10. July 2001, page 3, Section 3.2), pleads rather to the contrary. Neither does it appear to be possible that a skilled person might practice an IGF-1-based therapy aiming at selectively rescuing glial cell or non-cholinergic neural cells, while taking care that other CNS cell populations, such as the non-mitotic neuronal cells and/or the cholinergic neuronal cells referred to in document (C17), be left unaffected. "Selective targeting" would indeed run against the teaching of the patent in suit that "IGF-1 has potent nonselective action on neurons" (see page 9, line 1; emphasis by the board).

11. For the same reasons the different physiological effects highlighted by the appellant do not allow the identification of a new sub-group of patients to be treated. It is true that two different mechanisms of action of a drug may end in the "splitting" of the group of patients being treated into two distinct sub-groups, as in the cases considered in T 19/86 (supra) and T 893/90 of 22 July 1993. However, that is clearly not the case here, as the patent in suit contains no such teaching. No new sub-groups of patients to be treated for, eg "glial cell-dependent Parkinson's disease" or "non-cholinergic neural cell-dependent Parkinson's disease" can be recognized as distinguishable from the subjects referred to in document (C17).

12. In conclusion, the board considers that, even deciding in the appellant's favour that the physiological effects emphasized by the appellant are not known in the state of the art, these can only be regarded as the discovery of additional items of knowledge about further mechanisms of action underlying the known therapeutic application of IGF-1 in the treatment of CNS insults, but cannot in themselves confer novelty over this known therapeutic application.

13. The appellant argues that the skilled person would not take the teaching of document (C17) seriously, since it prescribes, for healing Parkinson's disease via IGF-1, the rescue of cholinergic neuronal cells (see page 8, central paragraph). In the appellant's view, this goes against the teaching of document (C5), according to which the target cells to be rescued when treating Parkinson's disease should be the dopaminergic neuronal cells and, moreover, this disease has to be treated with anticholinergic agents (see page 654).

14. In the board's view, however, the teaching of document (C17) is confined neither to healing Parkinson's disease, which is only one example of the many CNS disorders referred to on page 8, central paragraph of document (C17), nor to rescuing cholinergic neuronal cells, i.e. one of the many aetiologies underlying Parkinson's disease (see point 10 supra). Document (C17) is rather concerned with the more general teaching that IGF-1 can heal a CNS disease by "enhancing the survival of neuronal cells" (see page 6, line 19). The skilled person has no reason to doubt this technical teaching. Finally, any feature relating to the target cells involved in a CNS-healing process via IGF-1 has no bearing on the novelty issue since a novel insight into the drug's mechanisms of action (see point 12 supra) does not entail the novelty of the subject matter being claimed, as the same subjects are to be treated in the same way for the same disease.

15. In view of the foregoing, it is the board's view that document (C17) anticipates the subject-matter of claim 1 of both the Main Request and Auxiliary Request 1, neither of which can be allowed.

Article 52(4) EPC

16. In view of the negative finding in relation to novelty, no need arises for the board to decide the question of whether or not claims 8 to 10 relate to methods of treatment excluded from patentability by the provisions of the above Article.

Auxiliary Requests 2 and 3

Article 123(2) EPC

17. The wording "or" in claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 3 does not infringe Article 123(2) EPC, for the same reasons given under point 2 supra.

Right to priority

18. The parties agree that the subject-matter of the claims of these requests is not entitled to priority rights and the board agrees as well. These claims indeed relate to the treatment of MS, a pathology not disclosed in priority document (P).

Novelty

19. The claims at issue address the use of IGF-1 and/or an analogue thereof in the manufacture of a medicament for treating pathological situations resulting from MS. The parties agree that the claimed medical uses are directed to the treatment of pathologies not previously disclosed. Likewise, the board considers that the subject-matter of the claims of these requests is novel.

Inventive step

20. In view of the conclusions relating to priority rights (see point 17 supra), documents (C37) and (C38), published before the filing date of the patent in suit (3 August 1992), are prior art under Article 54(2) EPC, and can thus be relied on for assessing inventive step.

21. The claims at issue address the use of IGF-1 and/or an analogue thereof in the manufacture of a medicament for treating a CNS injury affecting inter alia glial cells, following MS (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 2), or for reducing, inter alia, the loss of glial cells suffered as a consequence of MS (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 3).

One of the aetiologies underlying MS involves oligodendrocyte (a glial cell) destruction and demyelination (see patent in suit, page 2, lines 18 to 19). That myelination is linked to the presence of oligodendrocytes is shown by document (C41), page 326 lines 1 to 3: "In most cases, the plaques eventually become devoid of oligodendrocytes and remyelination does not occur.25,26". This sentence is a summary of what was already known before the filing date of the patent in suit from the there cited references "25,26" dated 1982.

22. The patent in suit describes in vivo studies in adult rats where IGF-1 is administered following a CNS insult (ischemic hypoxia) and illustrating the rescue of glial cells and non- cholinergic neurons, i.e. the loss of these cells is reduced (see eg Figure 3 and 4 and page 9, line 53 to 54). It is further confirmed on page 2, lines 18 to 19 of the patent that in the case of MS, the CNS insult is associated with the loss of myelin and oligodendrocytes (a sub-population of glial cells).

23. The closest prior art is represented by document (C15), relating to IGF-1, glial cells and MS. This document is concerned with in vitro investigations on the effects of IGF-1 on oligodendrocytes. IGF-1 turns out to be a potent inducer of oligodendrocyte development and accumulation of myelin (see page 105, end of first paragraph). A further experiment using transgenic mice overexpressing IGF-1 tests how IGF-1 affects myelination in the brain in vivo. The transgenic mice brains are found to contain twice as much myelin compared to those of the non-transgenic littermates (ibidem, first full paragraph). On page 101, end of the first paragraph of this document it is further stated that "this information may ultimately lead towards the development of treatment to promote remyelination in multiple sclerosis".

24. Compared to this prior art, the problem to be solved by the claimed subject-matter can be seen as being the provision of a medicament capable of in vivo reducing the loss of glial cells or non-cholinergic neurons associated with a MS pathology. The question to be answered is whether or not it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at something falling under the terms of these claims.

25. The appellant emphasizes that reducing the loss of a cell population, a property of IGF-1 not disclosed in any prior art document, has nothing to do with causing the cells to proliferate or with stimulating cell growth. However, in the board's view, document (C38) shows a further type of action by IGF-1, distinct from proliferation/stimulation, namely its behaviour as a survival factor for oligodendrocytes, ie IGF-1 reduces death/loss of the glial cells oligodendrocytes (see page 31, r-h column, last paragraph and page 32, r-h column, first full paragraph).

26. The board is thus of the opinion that in the light of the combined teachings of documents (C15) and (C38), it would have been obvious to a skilled person that IGF-1 would be an effective agent in rescuing/reducing the loss of glial cells associated with a MS pathology.

27. In a further line of argument the appellant maintains that the in vitro data of documents (C15), (C16) and (C18) are not predictive of the in vivo action of IGF-1. To buttress this view, the appellant draws attention to post-published document (C41). The authors of this document (see page 330, first full paragraph) express their surprise that the in vivo tests achieve so little difference in oligodendrocytes number between the control and the experiment, contrary to their expectations from the in vitro tests. Document (C41) provides an explanation of this surprising result, which explanation lies with the substantial differences between the in vitro and the in vivo experiments performed so far (in brief, in vitro experiments: control = condition of IGF-1 depletion; experiments = condition of IGF-1 restoration; in vivo experiments: control = normal mice expressing normal IGF-1 levels; experiments: condition of IGF-1 excess).

28. However, since document (C41) is a post-published document, it cannot be used to show what was known to the skilled person at the filing date of the patent in suit, for the purpose of deciding the issue of inventive step. Further, since document (C41) compares proliferation/stimulation in vitro versus proliferation/stimulation in vivo, in the board's judgement, it is also irrelevant to a comparison of "rescuing" in vitro versus "rescuing" in vivo, the latter being the decisive issue (see point 25 supra).

29. Finally, the appellant argues that the in vitro studies according to document (C38) are not predictive of the behaviour of mature oligodendrocytes in vivo since they are carried out upon immature oligodendrocytes from the developing rat optic nerve, wherein cell death (apoptosis) still occurs.

30. Yet the board observes that the experiments described in document (C38) relate not only to immature oligodendrocyte "O- 2A" progenitor cells. That more mature oligodendrocytes can be rescued by IGF-1 is shown on page 38, l-h column, second full paragraph ("for more mature oligodendrocytes, IGF-1 is sufficient"). Moreover, once the skilled person has been taught by document (D38) that IGF-1 acts as a survival signal molecule for glial cells in vitro, in the board's opinion, he/she would reasonably expect that IGF-1 would achieve some survival in glia in vivo, especially if the experiment is carried out via an ICV (intracerebroventricular) injection as in Example "A" of the patent in suit (cf "ICV" on page 7, line 15).

31. The subject-matter of claim 1 of Auxiliary Requests 2 and 3. being obvious, none of them can be allowed.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility