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
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • 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
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • 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
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • 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 measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • 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
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • 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
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
    • 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
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • 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

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • 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
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • 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
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • 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
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • 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
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • 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
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • 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)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • 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
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • 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
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • 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
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • 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
      • Overview
      • 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
        • Unitary Patent 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
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • 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
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • 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
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • 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
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • 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
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • 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
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • 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
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • 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
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 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
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • 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
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • 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
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • 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
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • 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
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • 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
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • 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
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • 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
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 1127/03 (Wound healing/RENOVO) 10-01-2006
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 1127/03 (Wound healing/RENOVO) 10-01-2006

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T112703.20060110
Date of decision
10 January 2006
Case number
T 1127/03
Petition for review of
-
Application number
92907214.8
IPC class
A61K 39/395
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 85.23 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

WOUND HEALING

Applicant name
Renovo Limited
Opponent name

01: Cambridge Antibody Technology Limited

02: GENZYME CORPORATION

03: Integra Life Sciences Corporation

Board
3.3.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
European Patent Convention Art 87 1973
European Patent Convention Art 88 1973
European Patent Convention Art 89 1973
Keywords

Right to priority - main request, auxiliary request II - (no); auxiliary request VI - (yes)

Novelty - main request (no)

Inventive step - auxiliary request II (no)

Novelty, inventive step - auxiliary request VI - (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0005/83
G 0002/98
T 0133/87
T 0249/93
Citing decisions
T 1208/21

I. The appeal was lodged by the Patent Proprietor (Appellant) against the decision of the Opposition Division, whereby the European patent No. 0 585 242, claiming priority from GB 9106678 (28 March 1991), was revoked according to Article 102(1) EPC.

The patent, which had been granted on the basis of claims 1 to 26, had been opposed by Opponents 01, 02 and 03 (Respondents I, II and III) under Article 100(a) EPC on the ground of lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC) and lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) and under Article 100(b) EPC on the ground of lack of sufficient disclosure (Article 83 EPC).

Claim 1 as granted read:

"The use of an effective activity-inhibiting amount of at least one growth factor neutralising agent specific against only fibrotic growth factors selected from the group of TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and PDGF in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing."

II. The following documents are referred to in this decision:

(2) J. Invest. Dermatol., vol.92, 1989, pages 301 to 303

(4) J. Immunol., vol.145, 1990, pages 1415 to 1422

(7) J. Cell. Biochem., Suppl.15F, page 198, Abstract Q 423, 1 April 1991

(10) WO-91/10 727

(15) Lancet, vol.339, 25 January 1992, pages 213 to 214

III. Oral proceedings were held on 10 January 2006 in the presence of the Appellant and Respondents I and II. Respondent III, although duly summoned, did not attend.

The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of claims 1 to 25 of the main request or, alternatively, on the basis of claims 1 to 25 of auxiliary request II, both filed on 9 November 2005, or on the basis of claims 1 to 4 of auxiliary request VI or claims 1 to 3 of auxiliary request VII, both filed at the oral proceedings.

The Respondents I and II requested that the appeal be dismissed.

IV. Claim 1 of Appellant's main request was identical to claim 1 of the patent as granted (see section (i) above).

Claim 1 of auxiliary request II read as follows:

"The use of an effective activity-inhibiting amount of at least one growth factor neutralising agent specific against only fibrotic growth factors selected from the group of TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and PDGF in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing wherein said medicament is for human treatment."

Claims 1 to 4 of auxiliary request VI read as follows:

"1. The use of an effective activity-inhibiting amount of a growth factor neutralising agent specific against only PDGF in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing.

2. The use of a growth factor neutralising agent according to claim 1, wherein the growth factor neutralising agent is a growth factor neutralising antibody.

3. The use of a growth factor neutralising agent according to any of the preceding claims in conjunction with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.

4. A composition for use in the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing, comprising an effective activity-inhibiting amount of at least one growth factor neutralising agent specific against only the fibrotic growth factor PDGF."

V. The submissions made by the Appellant, as far as they are relevant for the present decision, may be summarised as follows:

The claims of the actual requests were entitled to the priority date. Should the Board in this point come to a different decision, the disclosure in document (15), which then would belong to the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC, was considered to be novelty destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request (Article 54 EPC).

However, document (15), whose disclosure corresponded to the disclosure of the priority document, did not contain a teaching which could have been used by a skilled person to arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request II in an obvious way. Reaching a different decision would only be possible if the disclosure in document (15), and thus in the priority document, was not interpreted consistently when deciding on the right to priority and on the question of inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

The subject-matter of claims 1 to 4 of auxiliary request VI was novel and inventive over the disclosure in the cited prior art documents (Articles 54 and 56 EPC). In detail, claim 4 referring to the first medical use of a PDGF-neutralising agent, was novel over the disclosure in document (2), which did not mention medical compositions. Remittal of this request to the department of first instance would effect an undesirable delay of procedure.

VI. The submissions made by the Respondents, as far as they are relevant for the present decision, may be summarised as follows:

None of Appellant's pending requests was entitled to the claimed priority date. Consequently, claim 1 of the main request lacked novelty over document (15) (Article 54 EPC).

Document (15) represented the closest prior art when deciding upon inventive step of claim 1 of auxiliary request II. The problem to be solved, namely the provision of a medicament for human treatment, would be arrived by a skilled person in an obvious way by combining the teaching in the closest prior art with the disclosure in document (4) (Article 56 EPC).

The claims of auxiliary request VI should be remitted to the department of first instance, as they were not considered in the decision under appeal. Claim 4, which was not exactly in the form as accepted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal for claiming the first medical use of a known substance, was not novel over the disclosure in document (2) (Article 54 EPC).

Priority - Articles 87 to 89 EPC

Main request

1. Claim 1 takes the form accepted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 5/83 (OJ EPO 1985,64) for claims to the second or further medical use of a substance known per se.

The claim relates to the use of at least one neutralising agent specific against only fibrotic growth factors selected from the group of TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and PDGF for the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of wounds. The treatment has the effect that scar tissue formation during healing is inhibited.

2. Knowledge of the potential targets, namely of the growth factors that have to be neutralised by the active substance(s) of the manufactured medicament, is essential for carrying out the invention according to claim 1.

3. The application as originally filed discloses that a number of soluble growth factors are fibrotic, which means that they induce neovascularisation, leukocyte chemotaxis, fibroblast proliferation and migration and deposition of collagen and other extracellular matrix molecules within wounds (page 2, line 21 to page 3, line 6). Among the group of growth factors that have been isolated and identified to have these characteristics are "...transforming growth factor beta (TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2, TGF-ß3 etc), platelet derived growth factor (PDGF), ..." (page 3, lines 10 to 12).

On page 4, last paragraph it is described that the TGF-ß growth factor family is believed to have a particularly important regulating role in wound repair. While the application as filed refers to three members of the TGF-ß growth factor family only (TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2, TGF-ß3), other documents disclose that five different TGF-ß members are known (document (10), page 2, lines 18 to 19).

4. On page 5, lines 5 to 8, the application as filed reads:

"However, it is now found that not all TGF-ß growth factors are fibrotic and that suppressing the activity of TGFß-3 in particular is counter-productive".

5. Thus, neutralisation of TGF-ß3, which is identified as not being a fibrotic growth factor, would be counterproductive for the technical effect of the invention, namely the inhibition of scar tissue formation during healing.

6. According to Article 87(1) EPC, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application shall be enjoyed for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 2/98 (OJ EPO 2001, 413) concluded that the requirement for claiming priority of "the same invention", referred to in Article 87(1) EPC, means that priority of a previous application in respect of a claim in a European patent application in accordance with Article 88 EPC is to be acknowledged only if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole.

7. The priority document GB 9106678, like the application as filed, refers to the role of specific soluble growth factors in the process of wound healing and identifies several growth factors as being fibrotic, among them TGF-ß and PDGF (pages 2 to 3). However, with regard to this characteristic, the priority document does not make a distinction between the different members of the TGF-ß, but, on the contrary, considers all members of the family to be fibrotic. The document, when referring to TGF-ß, either does not indicate any specific member of the family (see pages 9, 10 and 20 to 23), or specifies TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and TGF-ß3 without giving any hint that they might differ in their fibrotic activity (see pages 8 and 25). On page 8, lines 20 to 25, it is stated that an antibody neutralising only one growth factor involved in the formation of scar tissue during wound healing may be sufficient to prevent scarring. The examples given for such growth factors on page 8, line 23, are "TGF-ß1,2,3 or PDGF". Thus, also in this passage the entire TGF-ß family is addressed, without suggesting any difference between its individual members.

The passage wherein it is explicitly stated that TGF-ß3 is not fibrotic and its neutralisation has to be avoided (page 5, lines 5 to 8 of the application as filed; see point (4) above), is not contained in the priority document.

8. The priority document, starting on page 12, contains the description of illustrative examples. This description is identically contained in the application as filed. The examples refer to the test of five growth factor neutralising antibodies in an animal model (adult, male, Sprague-Dawley rats) for their ability to inhibit scar tissue formation during wound healing.

One of the tested antibodies, which all are said to be commercially available and to be of known neutralising potency, is described on page 19, lines 15 to 17 as being a "TGF Beta neutralising antibody (raised in rabbit against native porcine platelet TGF-ß1 - neutralises both TGF-ß1 and TGF-ß2) - Dose 50 microgm/injection."

9. The Board does not agree with the Appellant that the disclosure of one antibody, which is described in the priority document as being specific for targets explicitly mentioned in claim 1 of Appellant's main request enables a skilled person to derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the priority document.

The application as filed differs from the priority document in so far, as the target for the active compounds contained in a pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of wounds has been redefined.

The priority document does not contain any disclosure that would prompt a skilled reader to assume that a specific member of the TGF-ß family is fibrotic while another one is not. On the contrary, the skilled reader must come to the conclusion that all members of the TGF-ß family are involved in scar tissue formation during wound healing. As a consequence all neutralising agents specific to any member of the family would be considered to be suitable for inhibiting scar tissue formation during wound healing. This group of neutralising agents, which the skilled person after having read the priority document would consider to be suitable to achieve the desired effect, includes the specific antibodies used in the examples of the priority document, but also agents which neutralize TGF-ß3. As disclosed in the application as filed, their use would have a counterproductive effect, which the Board interprets to mean that scar tissue formation during wound healing would be increased.

10. Consequently, the Board comes to the conclusion that a skilled person from reading the priority document does not know the target to be neutralised, i.e. those members of the TGF-ß family which are fibrotic. He/she cannot directly and unambiguously derive from the priority document the invention according to claim 1, which therefore is not entitled to the claimed priority date.

11. The relevant date for defining the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC with regard to Appellant's main request is therefore the date of filing, which is 30 March 1992. Thus, document (15), published on 25 January 1992, belongs to the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC.

Auxiliary request II

12. Claim 1 of this request also refers to the use of at least one growth factor neutralising agent specific against only fibrotic growth factors selected from the group of TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and PDGF in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of wounds (see section (IV) above.

For the same reasons as given above for claim 1 of the main request, the claim is not entitled to the claimed priority date. Document (15) belongs to the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC also for this request.

Auxiliary request VI

13. Claim 1 defines the neutralising agent as being specific against only PDGF (see section (IV) above). Claim 2 defines the neutralising agent as being a neutralising antibody. Claim 3 refers to the use of the neutralising agent of any preceding claim in conjunction with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, and claim 4 relates to a composition for use in the treatment of wounds comprising a growth factor neutralising agent specific against only PDGF.

14. The priority document discloses at various passages that the use of an antibody or other agent having a neutralising effect in respect of only one growth factor selected from TGF-ß or PDGF is effective in reducing scar tissue formation during wound healing (see page 8, lines 20-25; page 9, lines 17 to 19; page 21, lines 15 to 18; page 25, lines 11 to 17). Pharmaceutical compositions comprising the neutralising agents in conjunction with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier are disclosed on page 25, line 24 to page 26, line 17, of the priority document.

15. Accordingly, claims 1 to 4 of auxiliary request VI are entitled to the claimed priority date.

Main request

Novelty - Article 54 EPC

16. Document (15) is a scientific publication of the inventors of the patent in suit. It refers to control of scarring in adult wounds by a neutralising antibody to TGF-ß.

Experimental tests using the rat model of the patent in suit are described on page 213, right column, second paragraph. Adult, male Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetised and four incisions were made on the dorsal skin of the animals. The wounds were left unsutured to heal by secondary intention to produce the greatest amount of granulation tissue and scarring. In each animal one wound (control) was unmanipulated, one (sham control) was injected with an irrelevant antibody, one (positive control) was injected with TGF-ß1 and one was injected with a neutralising antibody to TGF-ß. This antibody is described as follows:

"(10 µg antibody neutralise 0.25 ng TGF-ß1,2; BDA1, British Biotechnology, Oxford)."

It is reported that the wounds treated with this antibody contained much less collagen and had a more normal, regenerative pattern of dermal architecture, when compared to the other wounds (page 214, left column).

17. The Appellant explicitly acknowledged at the oral proceedings (see section (v) above) that, should claim 1 not enjoy the right of priority, its subject-matter was anticipated by the teaching in document (15). The Board agrees. In view of the explicit acknowledgement no further reasoning will be given.

The subject-matter of claim 1 is not novel contrary to the requirements of Article 54 EPC.

Auxiliary request II

18. Claim 1 is distinguished from claim 1 of the main request in so far as it contains the additional phrase "wherein said medicament is for human treatment".

The Appellant argued that the antibody designated BDA1 (see point (15) above), which was used in the experiments of document (15), was a polyclonal antibody preparation. Since such preparations were recognised as being highly immunogenic, a person skilled in the field of pharmacology would have immediately recognised that they were not suitable for human treatment. Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 was not anticipated by the disclosure in document (15) and was novel under Article 54 EPC.

19. The Respondents I and II argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 had no basis in the application as filed (Article 123(2) EPC and that the claim was not clear (Article 84 EPC). Moreover, they objected to the novelty of the claimed subject-matter on the basis of the disclosure in document (15).

20. In view of the findings on Article 56 EPC (see points (20) to (28) below) it is not deemed to be necessary to give a reasoned decision with regard to Articles 123(2), 84 and 54 EPC.

Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

21. In accordance with the problem and solution approach, the Boards of Appeal have developed in their case law certain criteria for identifying the closest prior art which provides the best starting point for assessing inventive step. It has been repeatedly pointed out that this should be prior art relating to subject-matter conceived for the same purpose or aiming at the same objective as the claimed invention and having the most relevant technical features in common, i.e. requiring the minimum of structural modifications (cf Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 4th Edition 2001, chapter I.D.3).

22. The invention according to claim 1 aims at the objective to provide a medicament for human use for the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing.

This objective is met by the use of at least one growth factor neutralising agent specific against only fibrotic growth factors selected from the group of TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and PDGF in the manufacture of such medicament.

23. The Board, in agreement with the opinion expressed by all parties, considers document (15) to represent the closest state of the art. It provides a composition for the control of scarring of wounds in a rat model, which composition contains a polyclonal antibody preparation neutralising TGF-ß1 and TGF-ß2.

24. Although the Respondents I and II did not agree that polyclonal antibody preparations are generally unsuitable for human use, the Board accepts the Appellant's argument that BDA1, the preparation used in document (15), is too immunogenic to be suitable for human use. The problem underlying the present invention in the light of the disclosure in the closest prior art is therefore seen in the provision of a medicament for the intended purpose which is suitable for human treatment.

25. It is undisputed between the parties that a skilled person at the filing date of the patent in suit, when trying to replace a polyclonal antibody preparation having a defined binding specificity with a less immunogenic antibody for human use, would look for a monoclonal antibody having the same binding specificity.

26. The Appellant argued that the skilled person when reading document (15) did not get sufficient information with regard to the binding specificity of a monoclonal antibody suitable to solve the underlying problem. Document (15), like the priority document of the patent in suit, did not contain any disclosure that would have prompted a skilled reader to assume that a specific member of the TGF-ß family was fibrotic while another one was not. In fact document (15) speaking about TGF-ß in general terms only did not make a distinction between the different members of the TGF-ß family. Thus, the skilled person would not have got any hint to avoid monoclonal antibodies binding to TGF-ß3, which had been found by the present invention to be not fibrotic and whose neutralisation had turned out to be counterproductive for the intended purpose.

The Appellant put emphasis on the fact that the disclosure of document (15) did not go any further than the disclosure of the priority document, which was considered by the Board to be insufficient for claiming priority for the subject-matter of claim 1. The same disclosure in document (15) could not possibly be used to show that the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step.

27. The Board does not agree. The Appellant is right when saying that document (15) does not disclose that a monoclonal antibody suitable to solve the underlying problem must not neutralise TGF-ß3. (The same applies to the priority document, which therefore was found not to refer to "the same invention" (see points (1)-(11) above).) However, and this is important for the assessment of inventive step, the document shows that a polyclonal antibody neutralising TGF-ß1 and TGF-ß2 is suitable to achieve the desired effect in a rat animal model (see document (15), page 213, right column, second paragraph).

Thus, although the skilled person looking for an adequate monoclonal antibody would not explicitly search for one that does not neutralise TGF-ß3, he/she would have no reason to disregard a monoclonal antibody which neutralises TGF-ß1 and/or TGF-ß2 and whose neutralising activity with regard to TGF-ß3 is unknown.

28. Further, the skilled person in his search for a solution to the posed problem would also turn to document (4), which in table 1 on page 1417 discloses two TGF-ß-specific monoclonal antibodies. One, designated 2G7, neutralises TGF-ß1, TGF-ß2 and TGF-ß3, the other, designated 4A11, neutralises TGF-ß1 only. The exact neutralising activity of the two antibodies is indicated on page 1417, right column, end of last full paragraph).

29. The board is convinced that, in order to solve the technical problem underlying the present invention, a skilled person would combine the disclosure of document (4) with that of document (15) and thus simply replace the polyclonal antibody preparation BDA1, used in document (15), with the monoclonal antibodies disclosed in document (4). He/she would have to repeat the experiments described in document (15) with each of the two monoclonal antibodies described in document (4). When doing so it would immediately be apparent that one of the two prior art monoclonal antibodies, namely 2G7, does not give rise to the desired effect as it neutralises TGF-ß3, which according to the patent in suit is counter-productive. The other monoclonal antibody 4A11, however, neutralising TGF-ß1 only, represents an obvious solution to the underlying problem.

Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 does not involve an inventive step contrary to the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

Auxiliary request VI

Remittal - Article 111(1) EPC

30. Remittal to the department of first instance is at the discretion of the Board (cf decision T 249/93 of 27 May 1998; point (2.2)).

The Respondents I and II based their request on the argument that the subject-matter of auxiliary request VI had not yet been subject to a substantive discussion before the Opposition Division.

It has been acknowledged in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that there is no absolute right of a party to have every aspect of a case examined in two instances (T 133/87 of 23 June 1988, point (2) of the reasons).

31. Independent claims 1 and 4 were contained in auxiliary requests II and III before the Opposition Division as claims 19 and 43, with the only difference that according to the present claims the growth factor neutralising agent is "... specific against only PDGF..." (emphasis added by the Board). In point (5.2) of the decision under appeal the Opposition Division explicitly stated that these claims were novel over the cited prior art documents (Article 54 EPC). The claims were also contained (as claims 1 and 25) in auxiliary request III filed by the Appellant with the grounds for appeal. The Respondents during the entire appeal procedure did not comment on this request.

In the present case, considering the structure and content of Appellant's auxiliary request VI, the Board comes to the conclusion that it is procedurally adequate not to remit the case to the department of first instance but to reach a final decision in this case.

Amendments - Article 123(2) and (3) EPC

32. Claims 1 to 4 are based on page 11, last paragraph and claims 1 to 3 of the application as filed. The scope of protection conferred by the claims is reduced with regard to the claims as granted. Thus, the requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC are met.

Novelty - Article 54 EPC

33. Claims 1 to 4 enjoy the right of priority (see points (12) to (14) above). Consequently, document (7), cited by Respondents I and II at the oral proceedings, does not belong to the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC.

34. Respondent I argued that claim 4 lacked novelty over the disclosure in document (2). He took the view that the claim was not worded as accepted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal for claiming the first medical use of a substance known per se. Instead of claiming a substance for use in a medical treatment, which use as such was excluded from patentability according to Article 52(4) EPC, the claim referred to a composition containing a pharmaceutically active component for use in a specific medical treatment.

35. The Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 5/83 (OJ EPO 1985, 64) held that claims directed to substances or compositions for use in any methods for treatment of the human or animal body are unquestionably directed to inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. This is expressly made clear in Article 52(4) EPC (see point (14) of the reasons).

Furthermore, in point (15), the Enlarged Board held that Article 54(5) EPC provides that the general rules of law relating to novelty (Article 54(1) to (4) EPC) shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or compositions, comprised in the state of the art for use in a method referred to in Article 52(4) EPC, provided that its use for any such method is not comprised in the state of the art.

36. Thus, in order to anticipate the subject-matter of claim 4, a prior art document must disclose a composition comprising a neutralising agent specific only against PDGF for use in a medical treatment of the human or animal body.

Document (2) investigates the effect of different growth factors on scar formation. The appearance and localization of PDGF (and other growth factors) in sections of skin biopsies from patients are investigated using specific antibodies to human PDGF. The document comes to the conclusion that PDGF may play an important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma (see abstract and page 303, left column, last paragraph).

The document, although it mentions the use of an anti-PDGF antibody for an analytical purpose, does not mention its use for medical treatment or a pharmaceutical composition containing the antibody. Neither does any of the other prior art documents on file.

Claim 4 is therefore novel under Article 54 EPC. The same applies to claims 1 to 3.

Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

37. The Respondents did not raise an objection under Article 56 EPC with regard to claims 1 to 4 of auxiliary request VI.

In the light of the disclosure in the prior art documents on file which do not disclose or suggest the use of neutralising agents specific against only PDGF in a medical treatment of the human or animal body in general, or specifically in the treatment of wounds to inhibit scar tissue formation during healing, the Board concludes that claims 1 to 4 involve an inventive step according to the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the following documents:

- Claims 1 to 4 of the auxiliary request VI as filed at the oral proceedings,

- pages 2 to 9 of the amended description as filed at the oral proceedings.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility