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
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • 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
      • Technologies
      • 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
      • 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
          • Core activities
          • Stories and insights
  • 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
      • Technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation against cancer
        • Assistive robotics
        • Space technologies
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
        • Research universities and public research organisations
      • 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 2244/11 (Omeprazole enantiomers/HETERO DRUGS) 05-03-2014
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 2244/11 (Omeprazole enantiomers/HETERO DRUGS) 05-03-2014

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T224411.20140305
Date of decision
05 March 2014
Case number
T 2244/11
Petition for review of
-
Application number
04729974.8
IPC class
C07D 401/12
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 520.53 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

A PROCESS FOR PREPARING PYRIDINYLMETHYL-1H- BENZIMIDAZOLE COMPOUNDS IN ENANTIOMERICALLY ENRICHED FORM OR AS SINGLE ENANTIOMERS

Applicant name
Hetero Drugs Limited
Opponent name

Sagittarius Intellectual Property Consultants Ltd

Appelt, Christian W.

Board
3.3.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Keywords

Admission of main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3-6 (yes)

All requests: inventive step (no) - obvious modifications

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0023/10
T 0144/09
T 1067/08
T 0936/09
T 0848/09
T 2485/11
T 0197/86
T 0234/03
T 0378/03
Citing decisions
-

I. The patent proprietor lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division revoking European patent No. 1 740 571.

II. The present decision refers to the following documents:

(1) DE 40 35 455

(2) WO 94/27988

(3) Handbook of Reagents for Organic Synthesis,

Chiral Reagents for Asymmetric Synthesis,

John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (GB), 2003,

pages vii to x and 176 to 178

(4) Aldrich Catalogue, Handbook of Fine Chemicals,

1999-2000, page 339

(5) Organic Synthesis, Collective Volume 5,

John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (US), 1973,

pages 196 to 198

(6) C.-H. R. King et al., Bioorganic & Medicinal

Chemistry Letters, Vol. 10, 2000, pages 473

to 476

(7) CV Therapeutics, Inc., Drugs of the Future,

Vol. 27, No. 9, 2002, pages 846 to 849

(8) K. Wiesner et al., Canadian Journal of Chemistry,

Vol. 50, 1972, pages 1925 to 1943

(9) J. Pfordt, Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem., 325, 1986,

pages 625 to 626

(10) M. Hasan et al., Tr. J. of Chemistry, 20, 1996,

pages 228 to 233

(13) Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis,

John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester (GB), Vol. 2,

1995, pages 973 to 975,

(14) Reagents for Organic Synthesis, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., New York (US), 1967, page 109

(15) J. F. King, Canadian Journal of Chemistry,

Vol. 51, 1973, pages 3914 to 3922

(16) K. Nagarajan et al., J. Indian Inst. Sci., 74,

1994, pages 247 to 255

(20) Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds, John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., New York (US), 1994, pages v to

viii, 297 to 299, 322 to 421, 1220

(20a) Basic Organic Stereochemistry, John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., New York (US), 2001, pages, v to ix, 208 to

273 and 286 to 301

(21) P. Newman, Optical Resolution Procedures for

Chemical Compounds, Vol. 1, "Amines and Related

Compounds", Optical Resolution Information

Center, Manhatten College, New York (US), 1978,

pages ix, vii, 2, 3, section 1: pages 5, 7 to 24

(23) WO 01/14367

(24) English translation of document (1), submitted by

the appellant during oral proceedings before the

board

(25) "Comparison of reaction conditions for examples

of D1 and of EP1740571B1", submitted by the

appellant at the oral proceedings before the

board

III. Notices of opposition were filed by opponents 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2) requesting revocation of the patent in suit in its entirety on the grounds of lack of inventive step and insufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(a) and (b) EPC). Opponent 1 additionally requested revocation of the patent in suit on the ground of added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC). With letter dated 13 May 2011, opponent 2 introduced lack of novelty as a new ground for opposition.

IV. The decision of the opposition division was based on a main request (claims as granted) and first to third auxiliary requests filed with letter of 13 May 2011.

The opposition division held that

- the main request contravened Article 123(2) EPC,

- the subject-matter of the first auxiliary request was insufficiently disclosed

- the second and third auxiliary requests lacked inventive step over document (1), taking into account the fact that camphorsulfonyl chloride was a well-known chiral auxiliary agent.

V. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant filed a main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 4. The main request and auxiliary request 4 were identical to the second and third auxiliary requests underlying the contested decision. The appellant also filed documents (20) and (21).

VI. Summons to oral proceedings were issued by the board on 4 December 2013.

VII. With letter of 13 January 2014, respondent 1 withdrew its request for oral proceedings.

VIII. With letter dated 4 February 2014, the appellant filed a new main request and auxiliary request 1. The previous main and auxiliary requests 1 to 4 were maintained as auxiliary requests 2 to 6. In addition, the appellant filed document (20a).

Independent claims 1 and 14 of the main request read as follows:

"1. A process for preparation of sulfoxide of formula I(i) as enantiomers or enantiomerically enriched enantiomers or a salt thereof:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

which process comprises:

a) reacting a mixture of enantiomers of 5-Methoxy-2-

[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)

methylsulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole or a salt thereof

with (S)-camphor sulfonyl chloride to obtain

diastereomeric mixture of 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-5-

methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-

(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole and 1-(S)-

camphorsulfonyl-6-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-

methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-

benzimidazole;

b) separating the diastereomers formed in step (a) by

fractional crystallization; and

c) deprotecting the separated diastereomers with a base

to provide a single enantiomer or enantiomerically

enriched compound of (R)- or (S)-5-Methoxy-2-[(3,5-

dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methylsulfinyl]-1H-

benzimidazole ((R)- or (S)-esomeprazole) and

optionally converting the (R)- or (S)-esomeprazole

to the salt."

"14. A compound selected from 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-5-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole and 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-6-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole."

Auxiliary request 1 differs from the main request in that compound claims 14 and 15 have been deleted.

Auxiliary request 2 consists of 17 claims. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:

"1. A process for preparation of sulfoxide of formula I(i) as enantiomers or enantiomerically enriched enantiomers or a salt thereof:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

which process comprises:

a) reacting a mixture of enantiomers of 5-Methoxy-2-

[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)

methylsulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole or a salt thereof

with (S) or (R)-camphor sulfonyl chloride to obtain

diastereomeric mixture of 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-5-

methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-

(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole and 1-(S)-

camphorsulfonyl-6-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-

methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-

benzimidazole;

b) separating the diastereomers formed in step (a) and

c) deprotecting the separated diastereomers with an

acid or a base to provide a single enantiomer or

enantiomerically enriched compound of (R)- or (S)-5-

Methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)

methyl-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole ((R)- or (S)-

esomeprazole) and optionally converting the

(R)- or (S)-esomeprazole to the salt."

Independent claim 16 is identical to independent claim 14 of the main request.

Auxiliary request 3 differs from auxiliary request 2 in that deprotection with an acid has been deleted from step c).

Auxiliary request 4 differs from auxiliary request 2 in that the separation in step b) has been limited to fractional crystallisation. As a consequence, the claim corresponding to claim 8 of auxiliary request 2 has been deleted and the subsequent claims have been renumbered.

Auxiliary request 5 is a combination of auxiliary requests 3 and 4, i.e. step b) has been limited to fractional crystallisation and in step c) the deprotection with an acid has been deleted.

Auxiliary request 6 differs from auxiliary request 2 in that compound claims 16 and 17 have been deleted.

IX. With letter dated 27 February 2014, respondent 2 filed additional arguments based on document (23). A copy of document (23) was submitted by fax on 3 March 2014.

X. The appellant's arguments with respect to the decisive issues can be summarised as follows:

- Admission of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 to 6

The filing of further requests, if appropriate, was not excluded in appeal proceedings. The requests filed with the statement of grounds of appeal were rather limited in scope and provided no additional burden for the respondents. Concerning the newly filed main request and auxiliary request 1, they were provided reasonably in advance of the oral proceedings. They were based on auxiliary request 3 provided with the statement of grounds of appeal (now auxiliary request 5, annotation by the board), contained no new subject-matter, were not difficult to understand and should simplify the discussion.

- Claim interpretation

The interpretation of claim 1 of the main request by respondent 2, in particular the alleged presence of chromatographic separation steps, was incorrect. The claim was limited to fractional crystallisation. Nothing else was intended or reflected in the wording of claim 1.

- Inventive step

Document (1) represented the closest prior art teaching the reaction of benzimidazoles with particular chiral auxiliary agents (see page 3, lines 24 to 39) to yield two pairs of diastereomers followed by chromatographic separation of isomers before separating the diastereomers by several crystallisation steps. The desired enantiomer was then liberated by solvolysis under strong acidic conditions. Fenchyl chloromethyl ether was the only chiral auxiliary agent proven to bind to benzimidazole nitrogen. No other type of chiral auxiliary agent was contemplated, nor was it certain how chemically different chiral auxiliary agents would perform in the process of document (1). The presently claimed process differed from the closest prior art in that camphorsulfonyl chloride was used as chiral auxiliary agent, the diastereomers were separated by fractional crystallisation, thereby avoiding chromatographic techniques, deprotection was carried out with a base, thereby avoiding the use of strongly acidic conditions, and higher yields of S-omeprazole rather than low yields of R-omeprazole were obtained. These differences as a whole resulted in surprising and unexpected technical effects, i.e. lower costs, higher production efficiency and improved yields of the desired enantiomer, which were the consequence of a combined contribution of more than one of the technical features, as can be seen by comparing examples 5 and 6 of document (1) with examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit. Accordingly, the problem to be solved was not merely the provision of an alternative process, but the provision of a "superior commercially viable process for producing omeprazole of the desirable configuration, i.e. S-omeprazole, the process having lower costs but at the same time higher efficiency and greater product yields".

The proposed solution was not obvious in view of common general knowledge. In this context, reference was made to documents (20) and (21), which showed that camphorsulfonyl chloride was neither a representative nor a favoured chiral auxiliary agent and therefore could not provide the skilled person with an incentive to modify the process of document (1), bearing in mind the technical problem to be solved. Document (1) itself provided no motivation to use chiral auxiliary agents of a different chemical type compared to those explicitly referred to in that document. Moreover, there was also no realistic expectation that using fractional crystallisation would have separated the desired (S)-omeprazole. Furthermore, none of the documents (3) to (5) and (13) to (15) provided the skilled person with an indication that the technical problem could be solved by using camphorsulfonyl chloride as chiral auxiliary agent and removing the camphorsulfonyl residue with a base. The same applied with respect to documents (6) to (9), which were concerned with the optical resolution of structurally rather different amines. Concerning the basic deprotection conditions, even if the skilled person, in view of the disclosure of documents (2) or (6), had considered such conditions, he still would not have arrived at the claimed subject-matter because both documents relied on the separation of the diastereomers by chromatographic techniques. Moreover, document (6) clearly taught that fractional crystallisation of the diastereomers failed. In addition, the low yields resulting from the reaction of the amine with camphorsulfonyl chloride disclosed in documents (6) and (10) would have deterred the skilled person from using that particular auxiliary agent, in particular bearing in mind the technical problem to be solved.

The arguments with regard to the subject-matter of the auxiliary requests were essentially the same as those for the main request, although it was acknowledged that no data demonstrating improvements in yields were provided for a process using acidic deprotecting.

XI. The respondents' arguments with regard to the decisive issues can be summarised as follows:

- Admission of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 to 6

According to the respondents the main request and auxiliary requests 3 to 6 should not be admitted pursuant to Article 12(4) and 13(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA). These requests could have been filed before the department of first instance. Moreover, the use of a base as compared with the use of an acid or a base was a new aspect which had not been argued before the opposition division and was therefore not compatible with the nature of the appeal proceedings. The new main request and auxiliary request 1 had been filed very late in the proceedings together with a novel argument concerning an alleged synergistic effect. Their filing deprived the respondents of the possibility to have the claims considered by two instances.

- Claim interpretation

The appellant's depiction of the "present invention" was not reflected in the wording of claim 1 of the main request. Claim 1, due to the use of the word "comprises", included other separation steps besides fractional crystallisation. Furthermore, the alleged separation of a mixture of the (S)-sulfinyl 5-methoxy and (S)-sulfinyl 6-methoxy isomers was not reflected in claim 1, which merely referred to "separating the diastereomers formed in step (a)" without any indication as to which diastereomers were in fact separated. If the board concurred with the appellant that this feature was reflected in the wording of the claims, then the claimed subject-matter gave rise to an objection of insufficient disclosure.

- Inventive step

Document (1) was considered to represent the closest prior art teaching the use of chiral auxiliary agents Rchi-X for the separation of enantiomers of benzimidazoles, including omeprazole. Document (1) was not limited to the use of the specifically exemplified chiral auxiliary agents on page 3, lines 24 to 39, nor to the use of chiral auxiliary agents whose residue Rchi had to be removed under strongly acidic conditions. It was sufficient that this residue could be removed smoothly. There were no doubts that camphorsulfonyl chloride reacted with the nitrogen atom of the benzimidazole and could therefore be used in the process of document (1). This was also confirmed by document (10). Fractional crystallisation for the separation of diastereomers was already part of the disclosure of document (1) (examples 1, 3 and 5 and page 3, lines 62 to 64) and therefore could not be considered as a distinguishing feature. Furthermore, the chromatographic separation of isomers disclosed in document (1) was not a mandatory step. Moreover, such a step was not excluded by the wording of claim 1 of the main request. The presently claimed process, therefore, differed from the process of document (1) merely in the use of camphorsulfonyl chloride in step a) and the use of a base in the deprotection step c). No technical effects had been shown to be associated with these distinguishing features. The problem to be solved was therefore the provision of an alternative process for producing enantiomerically pure or enriched (R)- or (S)-omeprazole. The appellant's comparison between examples 5 and 6 of document (1) and examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit was inadequate as evidence of the alleged improvements, because the examples of the prior art and those of the patent differed in more than only the distinguishing features. Since no synergy or common effect were observed for the two distinguishing features, they could be treated independently. The use of camphorsulfonyl chloride as chiral auxiliary agent for amines was common general knowledge at the relevant date of the patent in suit, as exemplified in any of the documents (3), (5) to (10) and (13) to (16). This fact could not be put into question by documents (20) and (21) submitted by the appellant as evidence that this agent was neither a representative nor a favoured chiral auxiliary agent. Its use in the process of document (1) was therefore an obvious alternative for the skilled person. Deprotection of the camphorsulfonyl residue was known to occur under acidic as well as basic conditions. Furthermore, document (1) already encouraged the skilled person to consider deprotection methods that relied on other than strongly acidic deprotection conditions by indicating that all chiral residues which can be smoothly removed were in principle suitable und that benzimidazoles were acid-sensitive compounds. Its stability under basic conditions was taught in document (2).

The arguments with respect to the auxiliary requests were essentially the same as those for claim 1 of the main request. It was, however, pointed out that, according to appellant's admission, the presence of a base was needed for achieving the alleged improvements.

XII. The appellant requested that the decision of the opposition division be set aside and the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or, alternatively, of auxiliary request 1, both filed on 4 February 2014 or, alternatively, on the basis of one of the auxiliary requests 2 to 6 filed as main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 4 with the statement of grounds of appeal.

XIII. The respondents requested that the appeal be dismissed.

XIV. At the end of the oral proceedings, which took place as scheduled on 5 March 2014, the decision of the board was announced.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Admission of main request, auxiliary request 1 and auxiliary requests 3 to 6

2.1 Respondent 1 objected to the admission of auxiliary requests 3 to 5 under Article 12(4) RPBA and cited decisions T 23/10, T 144/09 and T 1067/08 in support of its arguments. At the oral proceedings before the board, respondent 2 raised the same objection and objections under Article 13(1) RPBA against admission of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 to 6.

2.2 According to Article 12(4) RPBA the board has the discretionary power to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented or were not admitted in the first-instance proceedings. When exercising their discretion the boards of appeal have to consider the specific circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that the purpose of an appeal is to offer the losing party the possibility to challenge the decision of the opposition division on its merits, and not to conduct the case anew.

This means that if new submissions are not precluded, their admission is restricted (T 23/10, point 2.2 of the Reasons, T 936/09, point 2 of the Reasons). According to established jurisprudence, amendments, including amended requests, which can be considered as a normal reaction of a losing party given the circumstance are usually allowed into the appeal proceedings by the boards (T 848/09, point 1 of the Reasons; T 2485/11 point 2 of the Reasons).

2.3 In the cases cited by respondent 1 where new requests were not admitted under Article 12(4) RPBA the circumstances were different.

In decision T 144/09 the patent proprietor was informed at the oral proceedings before the opposition division that the introduction of a particular feature contravened Article 123(2) EPC. It made a "considered and deliberate choice" not to file any requests in an attempt to overcome this objection despite an invitation to do so by the chairman of the opposition division. With the statement of grounds of appeal the patent proprietor filed several sets of claims involving the deletion of the feature objected to by the opposition division. The board considered that claims with such a simple and straightforward amendment could and should have been filed before the department of first instance, at least in the form of auxiliary requests, and therefore declined to admit them. In decision T 23/10 the situation was similar.

In decision T 1067/08 the board did not admit a request, which the opposition division, in correct exercise of its discretion, had not admitted. The board considered that given the history of the claims their admission would be contrary to the judicial nature of the appeal proceedings and would render pointless the opposition division's correct decision not to admit them.

2.4 In the present case, auxiliary requests 3 to 5 were filed at the earliest possible stage in the appeal proceedings, namely with the statement of grounds of appeal in direct reply to the opposition division's decision revoking the patent. They represent further limitations to the second auxiliary request underlying the contested decision, which the opposition division considered as not to involve an inventive step and which the appellant presently defends as its main request. They are not considered to represent a significant deviation from the line of defence followed during the opposition proceedings, thereby rendering the contested decision pointless or requiring the board to conduct the case completely anew, but are a legitimate attempt by the appellant to defend its patent in a more restricted form. Even if, theoretically, the appellant might have been able to file auxiliary requests 3 to 5 at the end of the oral proceedings before the opposition division, it is not apparent to the board that in the present case, unlike in T 144/09 or T 23/10, it deliberately withheld these requests. Rather, the formulation of a suitable request which would have overcome the opposition division's inventive step objection was not so immediately evident as in T 144/09 or T 23/10. Hence, given the circumstances of the case, the appellant's auxiliary requests 3 to 5 filed with the statement of grounds of appeal are considered to be a legitimate reaction of a losing party.

Concerning auxiliary request 6, the board observes that it is identical to auxiliary request 3 of the contested decision. Respondent 2's objection against this request under Article 12(4) RPBA is thus not justified.

2.5 Concerning the main request and auxiliary request 1, they were filed after the statement of grounds of appeal and after oral proceedings had been arranged. In accordance with Article 114(2) EPC and Article 13(1) RPBA, admission of these request is at the board's discretion. The discretion is exercised in view of, inter alia, the complexity of the new subject-matter submitted, the current state of the proceedings and the need for procedural economy. Amendments which require adjournement of the oral proceedings are usually not admitted (Article 13(3) RPBA).

2.6 In the present case, the board notes that the new main request is almost identical to auxiliary request 3 (now auxiliary request 5) filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. The only differences are that claim 6 and the expression "(R)-camphor sulfonyl chloride" in claim 1 have been deleted. These simple amendments - the latter may even be considered as an attempt to address an objection under Article 83 EPC raised by respondent 2 - neither increase the complexity of the case nor give rise to procedural complication preventing the discussion of this request during the oral proceedings before the board. The same applies to auxiliary request 1, which differs from the main request merely in that claims 14 and 15 directed to particular intermediates have been deleted.

With respect to respondent 2's argument that it was deprived of the possibility to present its case before two instances, the board notes that in proceedings before the EPO there is no absolute right for a party to have every aspect of a case examined by two instances. Other criteria, for example the general interest that proceedings are brought to a close, have equally to be taken into account. Moreover, neither respondent 2 nor respondent 1 had requested remittal to the department of first instance should the board decide to admit any of these requests.

2.7 For the aforementioned reasons, the board decided to admit the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 to 6 into the proceedings.

3. Admission of documents (20a), (23) and (25)

3.1 Document (25) was submitted by the appellant during the oral proceedings before the board. It again compares examples 5 and 6 of document (1) - the document considered to represent the closest prior art in the decision under appeal - with examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit - a comparison which the appellant already relied on during the written proceedings. It does not confront the respondents or the board with any new facts or evidence. Hence, the board, despite the absence of respondent 1, sees no reason to disregard it. Its admission was not objected to by respondent 2.

3.2 In view of the outcome (see point 7 below), it was not necessary for the board to decide on the admission of document (20a), presenting the same information as document (20), or document (23), submitted as alternative starting point for the assessment of inventive step.

Main request and auxiliary request 1 (filed with letter of 4 February 2014)

4. Amendments

4.1 Claim 1 of the main request finds its basis in original claim 48. The limitation to fractional crystallisation in step b) is disclosed in original claim 57 and on page 10, lines 12 to 14, of the application as originally filed. The limitation to the base in step c) finds its basis on page 11, line 13. Claims 14 and 15 have their basis in original claim 66 in combination with the scheme on page 13 of the description as originally filed. The amended claims therefore comply with Article 123(2) EPC. This was no longer contested by respondent 2, who declared at the oral proceedings before the board that it had no objections under this article. Respondent 1 had not raised any objections in this respect in the written proceedings.

4.2 The amendments restrict the scope of the claims as granted and therefore comply with Article 123(3) EPC. The respondents had no objections in this respect.

5. Invention as claimed

5.1 Before examining the objection of lack of inventive step, the board considers it appropriate to give its view on the proper technical understanding of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request.

5.2 Claim 1 relates to a process for the preparation of (R)- or (S)-omeprazole as a single enantiomer or in enantiomerically enriched form. Since claim 1 defines the process as "comprising" steps (a) to (c), the claimed subject-matter is not restricted to a process consisting of only these three steps, but may comprise further steps, either before step (a), after step (c) or even between each of the steps a) and b) or (b) and c), provided that the "in between" steps are technically meaningful and feasible. Further separation and/or purification steps are such technically meaningful and feasible steps and are therefore not excluded.

5.3 Furthermore, step (a) of the claimed process yields a diastereomeric mixture of two pairs of diastereomers, namely 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-5-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole (i.e. diastereomeric pair A) and 1-(S)-camphorsulfonyl-6-methoxy-2-[(3,5-dimethyl-4-methoxy-2-pyridyl)methyl-(R/S)-sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole (diastereomeric pair B). According to step (b) the diastereomers formed in step (a) are separated by fractional crystallisation. There is, however, no indication as to which diastereomers are separated. Contrary to the appellant's view, the claimed subject-matter is therefore not limited to the subject-matter illustrated on page 10 of the patent in suit or in Annex 1 of the appellant's letter of 4 February 2014, which shows the simultaneous separation of the (S)-sulfinyl form of diastereomeric pair A and the (S)-sulfinyl form of diastereomeric pair B from the corresponding (R)-sulfinyl forms. The wording of claim 1 also encompasses a process where stereoisomeric pairs A and B are separated before separating the diastereomers by fractional crystallisation.

6. Insufficiency of disclosure

Given the understanding of the claimed subject-matter as explained in point 5 above, respondent 2 had no objections with respect to sufficiency of disclosure. Respondent 1 did not raise any objections in its written submission. Nor does the board see any reason to raise such an objection. Hence, it is not necessary to go into further detail in this respect.

7. Inventive step

7.1 Claim 1 of the main request is directed to a process for the preparation of omeprazole as a single enantiomer or in enantiomerically enriched form comprising the reaction of an enantiomeric mixture of omeprazole with a chiral auxiliary agent, namely (S)-camphorsulfonyl chloride, separation of the diastereomers formed by fractional crystallisation and subsequent removal of the chiral auxiliary agent residue.

7.2 Formation and separation of diastereomers using chiral auxiliary agents followed by the removal of the chiral auxiliary agent residue is, indisputably, a well-known technique for the preparation of single enantiomers and belongs to the basic knowledge of a person skilled in the art. Moreover, such a process is already known in the state in the art for the preparation of enantiomers of omeprazole. Document (1) describes the preparation of enantiomers of compound (I), including omeprazole,

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

via the reaction of a racemate (i.e. a particular enantiomeric mixture) of compound (I) with a chiral auxiliary agent Rchi-X, separation of the diastereomers followed by deprotection under strongly acidic conditions to remove the chiral auxiliary agent residue and obtain a single enantiomer (see page 2, lines 28 to 68). Suitable agents Rchi-X are all chiral configuratively uniform compounds, which are able to react with compound (I) or its anion, and the radical "Rchi" of which can be removed smoothly and without undesirable side-reactions (page 3, lines 15 to 18). Separation of the diastereomers takes place according to known methods, preferably via fractional crystallisation (page 3, penultimate paragraph). Isomers which are formed due to the prototropy of the benzimidazole may optionally be separated by chromatography before separating the diastereomers (page 3, line 65, to page 4, line 2). In examples 5 and 6, which were carried out according to examples 1 and 2, an enantiomer of omeprazole was prepared from racemic omeprazole sodium salt using (+)-fenchyl chloromethyl ether as chiral auxiliary agent. This reaction, due to the aforementioned prototropy, results in the formation of two pairs of diastereomers (i.e. the (+)-fenchyloxymethyl-5-methoxy-(+/-)-sulfinyl form (pair A) and the (+)-fenchyloxymethyl-6-methoxy-(+/-)-sulfinyl form (pair B)). The 5- and 6-methoxy stereoisomers were separated by chromatography (see example 1 and page 3, line 65, to page 4, line 2), the 5-methoxy-(+/-)-sulfinyl diastereomers were separated by fractional crystallisation and the isolated diastereomer deprotected with 90% sulfuric acid to obtain omeprazole in the form of a single enantiomer.

Thus, the board finds, in agreement with the opposition division and the parties, that document (1) represents the closest prior art and takes it as starting point for assessment of inventive step.

7.3 In the light of document (1), the appellant considered the technical problem to be solved by the present invention as the provision of a "superior commercially viable process for producing omeprazole of the desirable configuration, i.e. (S)-omeprazole, the process having lower costs but at the same time higher efficiency and greater end-product yields".

7.4 As evidence that this problem has been successfully solved by the claimed process, the appellant relied on a comparison between examples 5 and 6 of document (1) and examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit, in particular as shown in document (25).

7.5 It is established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal that if comparative tests are chosen to demonstrate an inventive step on the basis of an improved effect, the nature of the comparison must be such that the alleged advantage or effect is convincingly shown to have its origin in the distinguishing feature or features of the invention compared with the closest prior art (see T 197/86, OJ 1989, 371, T 234/03, T 378/03). In the present case, the distinguishing features compared to the prior art are the use of camphor sulfonyl chloride as chiral auxiliary agent and its deprotection with a base. Fractional crystallisation of the diastereomers is already disclosed in document (1) (see point 7.2 above) and therefore does not constitute a distinguishing feature. As explained in point 5 above, the wording of claim 1 is not restricted to the separation of the (S)-sulfinyl form of diastereomer A and the (S)-sulfinyl form of diastereomer B. It also does not exclude the presence of an additional separation step between steps (a) and (b) as disclosed in document (1). The "unexpected higher (S)-omeprazole yields, rather than the low (R)-omeprazole yields" is not a distinguishing feature of the claimed process as argued by the appellant in its written submission, but rather the technical effect allegedly achieved by the claimed process. Moreover, claim 1 is not limited to the preparation of (S)-omeprazole, but refers to the preparation of one enantiomer or enantiomerically enriched form of omeprazole, which can be either (R)- or (S)-omeprazole (see point VIII above).

7.6 Considering document (25), it is immediately obvious that examples 1 to 3 of the patent in suit differ from examples 5 and 6 of document (1) in more than only the aforementioned distinguishing features. They also differ, for example, in the starting material (i.e. omeprazole vs omeprazole sodium salt), the solvent (dichloromethane and N,N-diisopropylethylamine vs N-methylpyrrolidone), the temperature (0 to 5**(o)C vs 25 to 35**(o)C), the molar ratio between starting material and chiral auxiliary agent and the batch size. Since each of these additional differences can readily affect the overall yield, it cannot be validly concluded that the improvement in overall yield relied on by the appellant has its origin in the distinguishing features, namely the use of camphorsulfonyl chloride as the chiral auxiliary agent and deprotection with a base. The same applies with respect to the alleged improvements in costs or production efficiency. The appellant's comparison is therefore inadequate to conclusively demonstrate any improvements over the prior art, let alone any "synergistic" effects as alleged by the appellant.

7.7 According to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, alleged but unsupported advantages cannot be considered in the determination of the technical problem underlying the invention. Consequently, the technical problem as defined by the appellant needs to be redefined in a less ambitious way, namely as the provision of a further process for the preparation of omeprazole as pure enantiomer or in enantiomerically enriched form.

In view of the examples provided in the patent in suit, the board is satisfied that this problem has been solved.

7.8 It then remains to be decided whether or not the proposed solution is obvious in view of the prior art.

7.8.1 Document (1) teaches that all chiral, configuratively uniform residues which can be derived from naturally occurring or synthetically accessible chiral compounds and which can be split off solvolytically under acidic conditions are suitable as residue Rchi (document (1), page 3, lines 22 to 24). The teaching of document (1) is not restricted to the particular residues cited on page 3, lines 25 to 33.

7.8.2 At the relevant date of the patent in suit camphorsulfonyl chloride, which falls under the general definition of the chiral auxiliary agent Rchi-X of document (1), was a well-known chiral auxiliary agent for the optical resolution of amines, i.e. their separation into enantiomers. This common general knowledge is reflected in documents (3), (5), (13) or (14), and its practical application is illustrated in documents (6), (7) or (9). It was not contested that camphorsulfonyl residue can be removed under strongly acidic conditions. This is confirmed by document (7) (see page 847, scheme 1). It is, however, also known in the art that the camphorsulfonyl residue can be readily removed under basic conditions (document (6), scheme 1). Hence, the use of camphorsulfonyl chloride as chiral auxiliary agent Rchi-X in the process of document (1) and the basic instead of acidic removal of the camphorsulfonyl residue are measures which do not go beyond routine modifications that a person skilled in the art seeking to provide a further process for the enantiomeric resolution of omeprazole would consider. Moreover, for a skilled person it is already apparent from document (1), which indicates that the benzimidazoles are acid-sensitive compounds, that it may be worthwhile trying to avoid acidic conditions in the deprotection step if the chiral agent employed allows different conditions. This is confirmed by document (2), which, in view of the acid sensitivity of omeprazole (page 1, lines 26 to 30), taught the use of a chiral auxiliary agent which could be removed under basic conditions.

Furthermore, there was nothing submitted from which the board could reasonably conclude that the skilled person would have been advised not to consider the use of camphorsulfonyl chloride in the process of document (1). Document (1) teaches that all configuratively uniform agents Rchi-X able to react with the benzimidazoles of formula (I) are in principle suitable. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the board has no reason to doubt that the benzimidazoles of document (1), including omeprazole, will react, as expected, with camphorsulfonyl chloride to form a covalent bond with the nitrogen atom of the benzimidazole ring. Moreover, such a reaction is confirmed by document (10) (page 232, scheme 1).

7.8.3 During the oral proceedings before the board, the appellant did not dispute that there was a host of resolving agents at the disposal of a person skilled in the art and that the removal of camphor sulfonyl chloride with acid or base was known. Instead it relied on the presence of unexpected and surprising improvements, in particular considerable improvements in yield, achieved by the combined use of the claimed chiral auxiliary agent and its basic deprotection, which it considered as not being obvious with respect to the available prior art documents. However, this argument cannot succeed, since no such improvements were properly demonstrated and the problem to be solved is merely the provision of a further process (see point 7.7 above).

7.8.4 The board also disagrees with the appellant's argument that the skilled person would not have considered the use of camphorsulfonyl chloride, because of the low yield in its reaction with the amine reported in documents (6) (page 473, right column, second paragraph) and (10) (table 1) and because document (6) allegedly taught that fractional crystallisation failed (page 473, left column, last paragraph).

Considerations with regard to potentially lower yields are irrelevant if the problem to be solved is merely the provision of a further process. Concerning the alleged failure to separate diastereomers by fractional crystallisation in document (6), the board notes that this failure is reported for the separation of diastereomeric salts formed by reaction of the amine with a variety of chiral acids. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the behaviour of compounds where the chiral auxiliary agent is covalently attached. The board also notes that document (6) uses column chromatography for separation of the diastereomers formed with camphorsulfonyl chloride. However, this is not tantamount to a statement that fractional crystallisation of such diastereomers is impossible.

7.8.5 The board also disagrees with the appellant's attempt to disprove the fact that camphorsulfonyl chloride was a suitable chiral auxiliary agent for optical resolution of amines at the relevant date of the patent in suit, in particular by referring to documents (20) and (21).

Camphorsulfonyl chloride is, admittedly, not mentioned in the section "Resolving agent for basis" in document (20). However, document (20) does not claim to provide an exhaustive list of all suitable chiral auxiliary agents. On the contrary, document (20) states on page 329, 9 to 12: "No attempt has been made to present an exhaustive list of resolving agents from the large literature on resolution but the compounds whose structures are given are representative". What the authors of document (20) consider as representative is their subjective choice and cannot be used to disqualify the teaching of other textbooks like documents (3), (5), (13) or (14). Document (21) explicitly mentions camphorsulfonyl chloride as a chiral auxiliary agent suitable for the optical resolution of amines and related compounds. The appellant's argument that it was only one amongst a variety of other suitable chiral auxiliary agents and was not mentioned as being particularly favoured is not relevant in the present context, since the problem to be solved is merely the provision of a further process and requires nothing more than the selection amongst known chiral auxiliary agents suitable for the purpose. In these circumstances, there is no need for an additional pointer or a specific incentive.

7.9 For the aforementioned reasons, the board concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request and, due to its identical wording, of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). These requests must therefore be refused.

Auxiliary requests 2 to 6 (filed with the statement of grounds of appeal)

8. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request also forms part of the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary requests 2 to 6. Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 of these requests lacks inventive step for the same reasons as claim 1 of the main request (points 7.8 and 7.9 above). Therefore, these requests must also be refused.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

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