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
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • 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
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • 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
    • 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
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • 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
      • 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
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • 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
        • IP clinics
      • 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
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • 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
        • 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
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • 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
      • 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
    • 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
  • 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
      • 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
    • 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/t070391eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0391/07 (Immunotherapy of cancer/UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA) 13-01-2009
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0391/07 (Immunotherapy of cancer/UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA) 13-01-2009

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T039107.20090113
Date of decision
13 January 2009
Case number
T 0391/07
Petition for review of
-
Application number
95939926.2
IPC class
A61K 39/02
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 109.38 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Specific immunotherapy of cancer using a live recombinant bacterial vaccine vector

Applicant name
The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania
Opponent name
Anza Therapeutics, Inc.
Board
3.3.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention R 139
Keywords
Main request; added subject-matter (no); inventive step (yes)
Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0004/88
G 0002/04
T 1329/04
Citing decisions
T 0716/08
T 0830/08

I. European patent No. 0 790 835 (application No. 95939926.2, published as WO-A-96/14087) was granted with 8 claims. The patent relates to specific immunotherapy of cancer using a live recombinant bacterial vaccine vector.

II. Notice of opposition was filed by the opponent requesting the revocation of the European patent on the grounds of Article 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC. The opposition division revoked the patent on the grounds that the main and the auxiliary requests then on file did not fulfil the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

III. The opposition division considered the teaching of document D3 as the closest prior art. In its opinion, the problem underlying the patent in suit, namely the provision of an alternative tumour vaccine (main request) or the provision of an improved tumour vaccine (auxiliary request) had not been solved in an inventive manner.

IV. The patentee (appellant) filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division.

V. In a letter dated 8 May 2008, the representative of the opponent filed a request for recording a transfer of opponent status from the original opponent Cerus Corporation to Anza Therapeutics, Inc., and submitted documentary evidence.

VI. Oral proceedings were held on 13 January 2009, during which the appellant submitted claims 1-8 of a new main request.

Independent claims 1 and 5 of this request read as follows:

" 1. A vaccine for the treatment of cancer or for inhibiting the formation of tumors by inducing an immune response to a tumor specific antigen in a human host, the vaccine comprising a recombinant Listeria monocytogenes produced by homologous recombination which is capable of expressing and secreting a tumor specific antigen or fragment thereof, wherein the homologous recombination is in the Listeria monocytogenes chromosome and does not disrupt bacterial genes necessary for the growth and spread of Listeria monocytogenes."

"5. Use of a recombinant Listeria monocytogenes produced by homologous recombination which is capable of expressing and secreting a tumor specific antigen or fragment thereof, wherein the homologous recombination is in the Listeria monocytogenes chromosome and dose [sic] not disrupt bacterial genes necessary for the growth and spread of Listeria monocytogenes in the manufacture of a vaccine for the treatment of cancer or for inhibiting the formation of tumors by inducing an immune response to a tumor specific antigen in a human host."

Claims 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 related to specific embodiments of the vaccine according to claim 1 or the use according to claim 5, respectively.

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

D3 Schafer R. et al., J. Immunol., Vol. 149, No. 1, pages 53-59 (1992);

D5 Kocks C. et al., Cell, Vol. 68, pages 521-531 (1992);

D6 Camilli A. et al., Molecular Microbiology, Vol. 8, No. 1, pages 143-157 (1993);

D7 WO-A-93/15212;

D8 Mollet B. et al., J. Bacteriology, Vol. 175, No. 14, pages 4315-4324 (1993);

D9 Lampson L.A. et al., Cancer Research, Vol. 53, pages 176-182 (1993);

D10 Ikonomidis G. et al., Abstracts of the 94th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology held in Las Vegas on May 23-27, 1994, page 159, Abstract No E-90;

D11 Huang A.Y.C. et al., Science, Vol. 264, pages 961-965 (May 1994);

D14 Gunn G.R. et al., Vaccine Delivery Strategies, Edited by Guido Dietrich and Werner Goebel, Horizon Scientific Press, UK, pages 315-348 (2002);

D16 Stahl M. et al., J. Bacteriology, Vol. 158, No. 2, pages 411-418 (1984);

D17 Brown D.P. et al., J. Bacteriology, Vol. 170, No. 5, pages 2287-2295 (1988);

D18 Shen H. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 92, pages 3987-3991 (1995);

D19 Liau L.M. et al., Cancer Research, Vol. 62, pages 2287-2293 (2002);

D22 Wirth R. et al., J. Bacteriology, Vol. 165, No. 3, pages 831-836 (1986);

D28 Bodmer H.C. et al., Cell, Vol. 52, pages 253-258 (1988);

D29 WO-A-94/17192;

D44 Jensen E.R. et al., J. Virology, Vol. 71, No. 11, pages 8467-8474 (1997);

D45 Carbone F.R. et al., J. Exp. Med., Vol. 169, pages 603-612 (1989);

D46 Carbone F.R. et al., J. Exp. Med., Vol. 171, pages 377-387 (1990);

D51 Yangxin F. et al., Cancer Research, Vol. 50, pages 227-234 (1990);

D52 Repique C.J. et al., Cancer Investigation, Vol. 10, No. 3, pages 201-208 (1992);

D53 Young M.L.R. et al., Cancer Immunol. Immunother., Vol. 35, pages 14-18 (1992);

D54 Lejeune P. et al., J. Immunol., Vol. 152, No. 10, pages 5077-5083 (May 1994);

D55 Shimizu M. et al., Cancer Immunol. Immunother., Vol. 38, pages 272-276 (1994);

D64 Current Protocols in Immunology edited by Coligan J.E. et al., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Vol. 3, pages 3.11.1-3.11.20 (1992);

D70 Bear H.D., Cancer Research, Vol. 46, pages 1805-1812 (1986);

D71 Weidt G. et al., J. Immunology, Vol. 153, pages 2554-2561 (1994);

D86 Bruhn K.W. et al., Vaccine, Vol. 23, pages 4263-4272 (2005);

D98 Lin C.-W. et al., Int. J. Cancer, Vol. 102, pages 629-637 (2002);

D99 Irvine K.R. et al., Semin. Cancer Biol., Vol 6, No. 6, pages 337-347 (1995).

VIII. The submissions by the appellant (patentee), insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, can be summarized as follows:

Article 123(2) EPC

- The skilled person would know that homologous recombination could be carried out with a number of different plasmids, insertion sites and under the control of promoters different from L. monocytogenes promoters. The skilled person would therefore not read the passages on page 10 of the original application as being limited to the preferred embodiments mentioned in this passage.

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

- The problem to be solved was the provision of an effective tumour vaccine for use in humans.

- The in vitro test used in document D10 (and also in document D3) were not predictive of a situation where a true aggressive tumour was implanted in vivo in mice.

- Document D70 merely demonstrated that in animals exhibiting an in vivo anti-tumour response, there was a corresponding CTL response. However, this finding did not mean that the reverse ("CTLs assays correlate with in vivo anti-tumour activity") was true.

- It was not obvious to use a Listeria or another intracellular bacteria expressing a tumor antigen for treating cancer because bacteria were believed to act primarily through MHC-II-restricted pathway suited to treat infections, whereas viruses were used as vectors for releasing tumour associated antigens in vaccines suitable to treat cancer because viruses were known to elicit MHC-I immune response.

- The P815 cell line mentioned in document D3 was only used for determining CTL activity, a criterion which was not sufficient to establish protection and regression in vivo.

- There was no expectation of success that the claimed vector would elicit an anti-tumour immune response in view of the fact that many tumours were known to exhibit a variety of immunosuppressive functions.

Adaptation of the description

- The change of "MVC-1" in paragraph [0029] of the patent and in granted claim 3 and 7 to read "MUC-1" was evident (see document D99).

IX. The submissions by the respondent (opponent), insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, can be summarized as follows:

Article 123(2) EPC

- The wording in claims 1 and 5 "produced by homologous recombination... wherein the homologous recombination is in the Listeria monocytogenes chromosome and does not disrupt bacterial genes necessary for the growth and spread of Listeria monocytogenes" was disclosed in the application as filed only in combination with additional limitations regarding (i) a temperature-sensitive plasmid, (ii) a specific Listeria monocytogenes promoter, and (iii) the specific recombination site disclosed in document D6 (the Camilli reference). Therefore, the present wording represented a generalization in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC.

- The term "secreting" in claims 1 and 5 was in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC because secretion of the protein was disclosed in the original application only in the context of very specific situations.

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

- The recombinant Listeria vaccine defined by the claims differed substantially from the DP-L2028 strain actually used in the Examples. Moreover, the application as filed did not contain evidence that the claimed recombinant Listeria vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity. In view of the differences/deficiencies highlighted above, it was not plausible that the claimed vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity. This view was supported by post-published document D14, which showed that the integrated construct "Lm-E7" (obtained via homologous recombination) falling within claim 1 did not exert any anti-tumour effect on E7-expressing tumours.

- Since the present application as filed did not make it plausible that the claimed recombinant vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity, the conditions set out in decision T 1329/04 of 28 June 2005 for relying on post-published documents D19, D44, D98 and D86, as done by the appellant, were not satisfied.

- Hence, the problem to be solved was the provision of an alternative L. monocytogenes tumour vaccine.

- The claimed subject-matter was obvious in view of the teaching in document D10 alone or in combination with that of document D3 because the skilled person would have considered the in vitro CTL assays described in documents D10 and D3 to correlate with in vivo anti-tumour activity.

- The claimed subject matter could also be arrived at in an obvious way by starting from the teaching in document D9 or D29 that immunisation with the protein beta-gal or tumour antigen conferred protection against tumor growth, by turning to the Listeria vectors known from document D7 or document D10.

Adaptation of the description

- The change of "MVC-1" in paragraph [0029] of the patent and in granted claims 3 and 7 to read "MUC-1" was not allowable.

X. The appellant (patentee) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the main request and the adapted description, both filed at the oral proceedings.

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

Opponent status

1. The opponent status has been validly transferred from the original opponent Cerus Corporation to Anza Therapeutics, Inc. The documents on file show that the original opponent's part of business relating to Listerial vaccines was effectively transferred to Anza Therapeutics, Inc. This had the consequence that, following the opponent's corresponding request, Anza Therapeutics, Inc. acquired the procedural status as opponent and respondent in the present proceedings (see decisions G 4/88, OJ EPO 1988, 480 and G 2/04, OJ EPO 2005, 549).

Added subject matter (Article 123(2) EPC)

2. The respondent maintains that the original application disclosed the technique of homologous recombination only in combination with temperature-sensitive (ts) plasmids and that homologous recombination in general was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. Therefore, the wording "homologous recombination" in claims 1 and 5 represented a generalization in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC.

3. The board agrees with the respondent that "homologous recombination" is explicitly disclosed in the WO application only in combination with the wording "with a temperature sensitive plasmid" (see page 10, lines 12-14 and 31-32 of the WO application). However, for the purpose of deciding under Article 123(2) EPC, the content of an application is to be considered as the whole disclosure that is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application, including information which is implicitly apparent to the skilled person as a clear and unavoidable consequence of what is explicitly mentioned. The question thus arises whether or not the technique "homologous recombination" in general is derivable in this sense from the application as filed.

4. According to page 4, lines 20-22 of the WO application, means necessary for carrying out the present invention are recombinant forms of Listeria monocytogenes capable of expressing a tumour specific antigen or fragment thereof. On page 9, lines 19-20 of the WO application, it is stated that several techniques for producing these recombinant L. monocytogenes, such as transposon insertion (line 22) or using a prfA-containing vector (line 28) are known. In the board's opinion, the skilled person would understand that the selected technique was not critical, as long as a recombinant form of Listeria monocytogenes capable of expressing a tumour specific antigen or fragment thereof could be obtained.

5. The WO application provides the further information on page 10, lines 12-14 that a more preferred method is homologous recombination with a temperature sensitive plasmid. In the board's opinion, the skilled person reading this passage in the light of the whole application would perceive that, while homologous recombination with ts plasmids was a preferred and advantageous embodiment because the use of ts plasmids facilitated the screening, the remaining techniques mentioned above, including homologous recombination in general (i.e., relying on any screening method) also belonged to the palette of suitable techniques for obtaining the recombinant forms of Listeria monocytogenes. Therefore, it is the board's view that the disclosure of "homologous recombination" in general by the original application was a clear and unavoidable consequence of the disclosure of "homologous recombination with a ts plasmid" in the light of the original application, taken as a whole, and in the light of the common general knowledge (see documents D8, D16 and D17) that homologous recombination could also be carried out with plasmids not being ts.

6. In the respondent's view, the homologous recombination with a ts plasmid was disclosed in the original application only in combination with a Listeria monocytogenes promoter. The absence of the latter feature in claims 1 and 5 thus led to a generalization in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC.

Page 10, lines 17-20 of the WO application recites:

"This method [homologous recombination with a ts plasmid] allows for the routine insertion of any gene of interest into the chromosome of L. monocytogenes which is then expressed under the control of a L. monocytogenes promoter".

The respondent wants the board to read the sentence above as meaning that homologous recombination required the compulsory use of a Listeria monocytogenes promoter. The board firstly notes that the WO application (see claim 6, page 4, line 25 and page 10, lines 14-16) also provides a basis for claims referring to the expression/secretion of the protein of interest without any limitation to a Listeria monocytogenes promoter. Secondly, from the original application taken as a whole the skilled person perceived that neither the selected technique nor the selected promoter were critical, as long as the recombinant form of Listeria monocytogenes was capable of expressing/secreting a tumour specific antigen or fragment thereof. In fact, the application itself conveyed to the skilled person the information that heterologous promoters were also suited for performing the invention, since the plasmid pAM401 referred to on page 12, line 36 of the WO application (expressing antibiotic resistance genes under the control of E. coli or S. faecalis promoters: see document D22, page 834, under "Construction of pAM401") was introduced into L. monocytogenes (see page 13, line 5). Finally, the board observes that already a "natural" reading of the sentence quoted above excludes a compulsory connection of a particular gene with a particular promoter. In conclusion, the absence of a reference to a Listeria monocytogenes promoter in claims 1 and 5 is not in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC.

7. A further respondent's objection was that claim 1 infringed Article 123(2) EPC because there was a basis in the application as filed only for homologous recombination performed into the specific EcoRI recombination site disclosed in document D6 (the "Camilli" reference), whereas claim 1 no longer comprised the restriction above to the specific "Camilli" recombination site.

The skilled person would read the passage on page 10, lines 25-29 as referring to any region which can act as a site for insertion, without disrupting bacterial genes necessary for the growth and spread of the organism and that the reference to document D6 ("Camilli") in the original application was made only to show an example of regions which have been shown to have these properties. In fact, document D6 discloses a further strain DP-L1552 disrupted at the plcA site (see Fig. 2 and page 147, r-h column, lines 9-19). Moreover, the skilled person was aware of other possible integration sites (see document D18, page 3991, first paragraph and document D5, page 526, l-h column, lines 5-9 and Fig. 1). Therefore, the skilled person would have understood the sentence on page 10, lines 27-29 ("...utilizes a region of its chromosome that can act as a site for insertion without disrupting bacterial genes necessary for the growth and spread of the organism...") to refer to any region that can be used without disrupting genes necessary for growth and spread, e.g. those disclosed in the application as filed and known from the prior art (documents D6, D18 and D5).

8. Finally, the respondent argues that the term "secreting" in claims 1 and 5 is in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC because secretion of the protein was disclosed in the original application only in the context of very specific situations (see page 7, lines 15-21: fusion protein with LLO; page 9, lines 6-11: p210bcr-abl antigen from chronic myeloid leukemia and page 10, lines 23-25: LLO signal sequence).

Claims 1 and 5 require secretion of the tumor specific antigen and fragments thereof in the context of homologous recombination. There is a general statement on page 10, lines 12-16 of the WO application that homologous recombination with a ts plasmid can be used to produce transformants that secrete the protein of interest. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the board under point 5 supra that the disclosure by the original application of "homologous recombination with a ts plasmid" is an implicit disclosure of "homologous recombination" in general, there is a basis in the original application for the term "secreting" in the context of homologous recombination in claims 1 and 5.

Sufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC)

9. During the oral proceedings, the respondent no longer maintained any objections under this Article and the board sees no need to deal with the question of sufficiency of disclosure.

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

Closest prior art

Document D3

10. This document, issued from the same inventor's team, discloses a recombinant Listeria monocytogenes wherein a DNA sequence encoding beta-galactosidase (hereafter: beta-gal) has been inserted via a transposon/plasmid-based technique. This inserted DNA construct expressed but did not secrete beta-gal into the cytoplasm. This recombinant L. monocytogenes (DP-L967) was used to determine if the anti-listerial immune response would also expand to include the beta-gal antigen. The in vitro technique used for measuring the immune response of mice immunized with this live vaccine was a "chromium-51 release cytotoxicity assay" carried out with beta-gal expressing P815 cells (see page 54, r-h column) used for the detection of beta-gal specific CTLs (inter alia CD8**(+)).

Document D10

11. This document, also issued from the same inventor's team, describes a recombinant Listeria monocytogenes that expressed and secreted into the cytoplasm the influenza nucleoprotein antigen NP as a fusion protein. It is stated in this document that cells infected with this recombinant Listeria monocytogenes expressing NP became the targets for recognition by influenza-specific T cells. The method used for measuring the immune response of mice immunized with the live vaccine of document D10 relied on the in vitro detection of NP-specific CTLs in splenocyte cultures.

Document D7

12. This document relates to an attenuated mutant of L. monocytogenes incorporating in the act A gene or its promoter a mutation capable of blocking the expression of the protein encoded by the act A gene. It is stated on page 4, lines 21-34 of this document that an heterologous DNA can be inserted into this mutant for expression of bacterial or viral antigens such as HIV gp120 (page 5, line 3). Reference is also made (see page 13, lines 11-16) to homologous recombination as a means for inserting the heterologous DNA, which could be preceded by the signal DNA sequence of the hly gene for enabling secretion of the expressed fusion protein (see claim 17).

Document D9

13. This document is concerned with a 9L/lacZ gliosarcoma cell line expressing the marker protein beta-gal, permitting the visualisation of disseminated tumour cells within the brain. It is shown that immunisation with the protein beta-gal itself could protect against tumour growth.

Document D29

14. It is stated on page 15, lines 16-19 of this document that studies indicated that vaccinia virus recombinant vaccines containing either the SV40 T antigen genes or the E6 and E7 genes from HPV or influenza nucleoprotein would protect animals against subsequent challenge with tumour cells that expressed these proteins as tumour antigens.

15. The analysis above shows that only document D9 (see page 179, l-h column, lines 4-5) and document D29 (see page 15, lines 16-19) are concerned with obtaining the biological effect stated in claim 1, namely reducing tumour growth or conferring tumour protection. However, the means for achieving this effect (document D9: immunisation with beta-gal or a 9L/lacZ gliosarcoma cell line expressing the marker protein beta-gal; document D29: a viral vector) completely diverge from a recombinant Listeria vector.

Documents D3, D10 and D7 address a recombinant Listeria vaccine. The heterologous DNA to be inserted in the vector according to document D7, however, encodes a bacterial or viral antigen (see page 4, lines 21-34 and page 5, line 3), unlike that expressed by the vectors of document D3 and D10, which is a "pseudo cancer antigen" beta-gal or NP (see point 21(i) infra).

Therefore, documents D3 and D10 come closer to the claimed subject-matter than documents D7 and D9. The biological effect described in the former documents is an immune response (beta-gal specific or NP-specific CTLs) measured/detected in vitro (see points 10 and 11 supra). Given that both claim 1 and document D10 mention secretion of the expressed protein, while the construct referred to in document D3 is unable to achieve said secretion, the board considers that document D10 represents the closest prior art for the purpose of applying the problem-solution approach.

Problem to be solved

16. The claimed vaccine differs from the recombinant vector described in document D10 by the following features: (i) a tumor specific antigen (claims 1 and 5) vs. influenza nucleoprotein NP (document D10); (ii) human host (claims 1 and 5) vs. mouse (document D10); (iii) homologous recombination for inserting the heterologous gene (claims 1 and 5) vs. no information in this respect (document D10) and (iv) treatment of cancer or inhibition in vivo of cancer (claims 1 and 5) vs. in vitro detection of NP-specific CTLs in splenocyte cultures of mice immunized with the live vaccine. Given that features (i) to (iii) above are not of a critical nature (see point 20(i) to (iii) infra), the board considers that feature (iv) represents the decisive difference over the closest prior art. Hence, the problem to be solved is the provision of an effective tumour vaccine for use in humans.

17. The respondent maintains that the problem to be solved was rather the provision of an alternative L. monocytogenes tumour vaccine because the feature in claims 1 and 5 that the recombinant vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity could not be taken into account in view of the deficiencies explained in detail below.

18. It is argued by the respondent that the recombinant Listeria vaccine defined by the claims differed substantially from the DP-L2028 strain actually used in the Examples in the following features: (i) a tumor specific antigen (claims 1 and 5) vs. influenza nucleoprotein NP (Examples); (ii) human host (claims 1 and 5) vs. mouse (Examples) and (iii) homologous recombination (claims 1 and 5) vs. episomal expression via multicopy plasmids (Examples). Moreover, the application as filed did not contain evidence that the claimed recombinant Listeria vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity. In view of the differences highlighted above, this in vivo anti-tumour activity was not plausible. This respondent's view was supported by post-published document D14, which showed that the integrated construct "Lm-E7" (obtained via homologous recombination) falling within claim 1 did not exert any anti-tumour effect on E7-expressing tumours, in contrast to the plasmid-based construct "Lm-LLO-E7" (similar to the plasmid-based constructs exemplified in the patent). The respondent also cited decision T 1329/04 (supra) in support of its case. The rationale underlying this decision required that supplementary post-published evidence could only be taken into account if the disclosure in the application as filed made it plausible that its teaching indeed solved the problem it purported to solve. However, since the present application as filed did not make it plausible that the claimed recombinant vaccine exhibited in vivo anti-tumour activity, the conditions for relying on post-published documents D19, D44, D98 and D86, as done by the appellant, were not satisfied.

19. Since the respondent relied heavily on decision T 1329/04 (supra) to support its case, the board provides the following analysis. In this decision, the problem to be solved was isolating a further member of the TGF-beta family. The solution provided was a DNA sequence encoding "protein GDF-9". The board in that case came to the conclusion that this problem had not plausibly been solved because the application underlying that decision lacked fundamental information which served to establish whether or not protein GDF-9 belonged to the TGF-beta family, namely the "seven cystein residue pattern" (see point 7 of the "Reasons") and the "70-90% homology requirement" (see point 8 of the "Reasons"). Protein GDF-9 could thus not clearly and unambiguously be identified as a member of the TGF-beta family on the basis of the application as filed and supplementary post-published evidence could not be taken into consideration to establish the nexus between protein GDF-9 and TGF-beta family.

20. In the board's judgement, the rationale underlying decision T 1329/04 (supra) has no bearing on the present case. This is because the present application as filed did provide all the necessary technical information for the skilled person to prepare (see the WO application on page 10, line 12 to page 11, line 13) and to test (see the in vivo challenge tests disclosed in the Examples) the claimed recombinant Listeria vaccine. The only missing data were the results of possible in vivo experiments performed with the claimed vaccine. However, the successful results of the exemplified in vivo tests could plausibly be extended to the claimed embodiment because the changes were not perceived as being such that the in vivo activity of the claimed vaccine would be abolished, in the light of the following facts:

(i) as for the difference in the expressed antigen (a tumour specific antigen (claims 1 and 5) vs. influenza nucleoprotein NP (Examples)), document D9 and document D11 showed that "pseudo cancer antigens" such as beta-gal and NP (which were artificially introduced into the target tumour cell) could serve/behaved as tumour antigens for in vivo studies. According to page 176, l-h column, two last paragraphs of document D9, immunisation with the beta-gal protein could indeed protect against tumour growth of tumour cell lines expressing the lacZ reporter gene (i.e. an E. coli-derived beta-gal: see Abstract, lines 3-4). Likewise, the expression of NP did not change the in vivo growth characteristics of the tumor and the NP antigen was capable of being recognized by T cells (see document D11, page 963, central column, lines 7-11) ;

(ii) as regards the selected expression/secretion technique (homologous recombination (claims 1 and 5) vs. episomal expression via multicopy plasmids (Examples)), this aspect was perceived as not being critical, as long as a recombinant form of Listeria monocytogenes capable of expressing and secreting a tumour specific antigen or fragment thereof could be obtained. In the decision under appeal (see point 7, fourth paragraph) the respondent is quoted that it agreed that the use of homologous recombination instead of transposon-based insertion did not result in improved properties of the tumour vaccine, but merely represented a well-known alternative way of introducing genes into the chromosome of a bacteria. On appeal, the respondent also argued that no advantageous technical effect resulted from this change in expression system (see bottom of page 10 of the submission dated 1 October 2007); and

(iii) as for the immunized host (human (claims 1 and 5) vs. mouse (Examples)), in vivo animal data could be used to show that treatment of humans was plausible.

21. In support of its view that the exemplified results could not be extrapolated to the claimed vaccine, the respondent further drew attention to post-published document D14, which showed that the integrated construct "Lm-E7" (obtained via homologous recombination) falling within claim 1 did not exert any anti-tumour effect on an E7-expressing tumour, in contrast to the plasmid-based construct "Lm-LLO-E7" (similar to the plasmid-based constructs exemplified in the patent).

However, this possible failure described in document D14 has to be balanced with the numerous documents describing integrated constructs falling under claim 1 which are capable of conferring tumour protection or exerting tumour regression activity, such as documents D19 (see page 2288, l-h column, paragraph headed "rLm strains", wherein reference is made to document D18 (see the term "integration" on page 3988, l-h column, line 4)), document D44 (see page 8468, l-h column, line 14 from the bottom), document D98 (see page 630, r-h column, line 8, from the bottom: "integration") and document D86 (see page 4265, l-h column, line 15: "integrated plasmids").

22. In conclusion, the present situation differs from that dealt with in decision T 1329/04 (supra) in that the post-published evidence (documents D14, D18, D19, D44 and D98) cited by the appellant merely serves the purpose of confirming what was already disclosed and rendered plausible in the application as filed.

The problem to be solved is thus the one stated above (see point 16 supra) and not the one the respondent has proposed, i.e., the provision of an alternative L. monocytogenes tumour vaccine (see point 17 supra).

23. Example 2 of the patent shows that the anti-tumour responses elicited by a recombinant Listeria monocytogenes vector, LM-NP, impeded growth of a very large dose, 50 times the tumouricidal dose (column 10, line 47), of CT26-NP or RENCA-NP tumour cells. Immunized mice were completely protected from tumour formation or growth, a result that indicated the efficacy and potency of this immunization technique. Further, Example 4 demonstrated regression of growth of a RENCA-NP tumour. Example 6 provided the technical information that CD4**(+) T cells, in addition to CD8**(+) T cells, were also important for protection from tumour challenge. Therefore, the board is satisfied that the claimed subject-matter solves indeed the problem of providing an effective tumour vaccine for use in humans.

24. The respondent argues that the claimed subject-matter would have been obvious in view of the teaching in document D10 alone or in combination with that of document D3 because the skilled person would have considered the in vitro CTL assays described in documents D10 and D3 to correlate with in vivo anti-tumour activity.

25. In support of its case, the respondent relies on document D70, which describes mice immunized with P815 mastocytoma cells. Response of the mouse immune system was determined using in vitro CTL assays performed on spleen cells as in document D10. A further document D71 was cited for confirming this line of argument.

26. It is stated in document D70 (see page 1810, l-h column, lines 10-14): "Our finding that resistance to challenge after a given regimen of immunization correlates with the in vitro ability to generate cytotoxic cells is in agreement with previous reports (16,17) that CTLs mediate immunity against this tumor". Page 1806, r-h column, lines 4-8 further recites: "The other 50-60% of syngeneic hosts demonstrated complete regression and remained tumor free indefinitely (up to 4 mo). Spleen cells from these regressors demonstrated marked CTL activity after in vitro stimulation in MLTCs (Fig. 1)". Document D71 states (see page 2559, l-h column, lines 29-32: "... a well-established correlation exists between protection and suppression of virus replication in vivo, on the one hand, and activity of CD8**(+) CTLs in vitro, on the other").

27. The board notes that the investigations described in document D70 merely demonstrate that in animals exhibiting an in vivo anti-tumour response (i.e., having the capacity of slowing down tumour growth or causing tumour regression), there was a corresponding CTL response. This also applies to the antiviral protection referred to in document D71. However, insofar as in vivo anti-tumour activity is concerned, this finding does not mean that the reverse ("CTLs assays correlate with in vivo anti-tumour activity") is true. This is because a CTL response is a necessary but not sufficient condition for in vivo anti-tumour response. In fact, document D45 demonstrates that elicitation of CTLs in vitro did not translate into in vivo efficacy (see bottom of page 603: "However, the ability of peptides to direct CTL recognition in vitro is not sufficient to predict their ability to prime CTL response in vivo"). This finding is confirmed by the last paragraph on page 605 of document D45, stating that "CN OVA, which can sensitize EL4 cells for lysis by OVA transfectant-primed or PT OVA-primed CTL, was not capable of priming the CTL response when injected into mice in doses up to 1 mg per animal" (emphasis by the board). Thus, the immune cells involved in these artificial in vitro assays (such as those described in documents D3 and D10) could differ from those responsible for in vivo tumour protection or for any other type of in vivo efficaciousness.

Further, it should be noted that document D46 suggests that the use of beta-gal expressing P815 cells (in the same assay as disclosed in document D3: see point 10 supra) might give misleading results (high CTL background response).

28. The respondent considers that the in vitro test described in document D3 uses a mastocytoma mouse cell line P815 as a tumour model indicative of tumour protection/regression.

In a few words, this test takes advantage of the release of radioactive **(51)Cr by cells sensitized with the antigen upon attack by CTLs specific for the antigen. However, the board notes that the choice of the tumour cell P815 is only made by convenience (it takes up **(51)Cr better than other cells) and not because it represents a tumour model. This cell was not used for inducing a tumour. Thus, the choice of this cell does not mean that the in vivo anti-cancer properties of a potential vaccine were at stake. The board's view above is supported by document D64 (see page 3.11.5: "Lymphoblasts, tissue culture cells, or tumor cells are recommended as source of target cells because they take up more **(51)Cr with less subsequent spontaneous leakage than nonactivated, freshly explanted normal cells" (emphasis by the board). Hence, whilst it is true that document D3 (see point 10 supra) and document D28 (see page 257, under "Cytotoxic Assays") mention the P815 cell line, it is only for determining CTL activity, a criterion which is not sufficient to establish protection and regression in vivo.

29. In conclusion, there is no evidence before the board that the in vitro tests used in document D10 (and also in document D3) to measure the immune response was ever used in the art in connection with tumour protection. The only acceptable standard indicative of tumour protection/regression was in vivo suppression of tumour growth and/or induction of tumour regression (see document D65, page 1207, r-h column, last paragraph discussing the orthotopic implantation of intact human tumour specimens in animals as a model for developing new cancer therapeutics).

30. Therefore, the respondent's line of argument that the claimed subject-matter would have been obvious in view of the teaching in document D10 alone or in combination with that of document D3 that the skilled person would have considered the in vitro CTL assays described in documents D10 and D3 to correlate with in vivo anti-tumour activity, is not convincing.

31. In a further line of argument, the respondent maintains that the claimed subject matter could be arrived at in an obvious way by starting from the teaching in document D9 or D29 (see points 13 and 14 supra) that immunisation with the protein beta-gal conferred protection against tumour growth or that vaccinia virus recombinant vaccines expressing SV40 T or E6 and E7 HPV antigens or influenza NP protected animals against subsequent challenge with tumour cells that expressed these proteins as tumour antigens, and turning to the Listeria vectors known from document D7 or document D10.

32. However, the board first observes that before the present invention, only viruses were used as vectors for releasing tumour associated antigens in vaccines suitable to treat cancer. There is no evidence before the board of the use of an extracellular or intracellular bacteria (such as Listeria) for this purpose. But even if the skilled person, for the sake of argument, turned to Listeria monocytogenes as a vector for expressing a tumour antigen for treating cancer, there was no or too little expectation of success that such vector would elicit an anti-tumour immune response, let alone induce regression of an implanted tumour, in view of the fact that many tumours were known to exhibit a variety of immunosuppressive functions (see documents D51 to D55).

33. In summary, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 and dependent claims does not follow from the prior art in an obvious way.

Adaptation of the description

34. The respondent objected to the change of "MVC-1" in paragraph [0029] of the patent and in granted claim 3 and 7 to read "MUC-1". However, this correction satisfies the requirements of Rule 139 EPC since it was immediately evident that "MUC-1" was the correct acronym for mucin (a tumour specific antigen for breast and pancreatic carcinoma), not "MVC-1" (see reference "21" of document D99 on page 338, lines 7-10 and on page 344).

35. Furthermore the respondent took the view that the description had to make clear that the embodiments in the examples were not part of the claimed invention. However, the board notes that objections based on Article 84 EPC (lack of clarity or lack of support) can only be raised in opposition proceedings in so far as they are caused by amendments introduced by the proprietor, which is not the case here.

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:

o claims 1 to 8 of the main request filed at the oral proceedings;

o pages 2 to 9 of the amended description, filed at the oral proceedings;

o figures 1 to 8 of the patent specification.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • 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