European Patent Office

T 1616/09 (Combination therapy with anti-neoplastic agent and DNA methylation inhibitor/SUPERGEN) of 27.08.2014

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T161609.20140827
Date of decision
27 August 2014
Case number
T 1616/09
Petition for review of
-
Application number
02717415.0
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
RESTORATION OF CANCER-SUPPRESSING FUNCTIONS TO NEOPLASTIC CELLS THROUGH DNA HYPOMETHYLATION
Applicant name
SuperGen, Inc.
Opponent name
-
Board
3.3.02
Headnote
-
Keywords
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
Catchword
For the purposes of Article 83 EPC, the level of disclosure in the application which is required for claims directed to pharmaceutical compositions or kits is not the same as that which is required for medical-use claims. For claims directed to pharmaceutical compositions or kits it is in principle sufficient that the application provides information which allows the skilled person to produce the composition or kit, and that there are no substantiated doubts that it could indeed be used in therapy. For second-medical-use claims on the other hand it is required not only that the composition itself is disclosed in an enabling way but also that its suitability for the claimed treatment is plausibly disclosed in the application (Reasons 6).
In the case of a claim directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising two classes of compounds which have both already been used in therapy in the prior art, there is a priori no reason to doubt that such a pharmaceutical composition can be produced; no specific functional effect has to be demonstrated (Reasons 6.1.1 and 6.1.2).
In the case of second-medical-use claims, if the claimed therapeutic effect was already known to the skilled person at the priority date, it is not necessary to demonstrate it in the application (Reasons 6.2.2).
Cited cases
T 0609/02

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.