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 2024
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Executive summary
          • Driver 1 – People
          • Driver 2 – Technologies
          • Driver 3 – High-quality, timely products and services
          • Driver 4 – Partnerships
          • Driver 5 – Financial Sustainability
        • 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 2099/15 20-11-2020
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 2099/15 20-11-2020

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T209915.20201120
Date of decision
20 November 2020
Case number
T 2099/15
Petition for review of
-
Application number
06825074.5
IPC class
C07D487/04
A61K31/437
A61P29/00
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 514.08 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

FUSED HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS USEFUL AS KINASE MODULATORS

Applicant name
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Opponent name
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft
Board
3.3.02
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention 100(c) (2007)
European Patent Convention 056 (2007)
European Patent Convention 099(2) (2007)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 012(4) (2007)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 025(2) (2020)
Keywords

Grounds for opposition - amendments

Admissibility of appeal

Late-filed evidence - documents not admitted in first instance proceedings

Inventive step

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0001/03
G 0003/14
G 0001/91
G 0007/93
Citing decisions
-

I. This decision concerns the appeal filed by the opponent (appellant) against the opposition division's decision (decision under appeal) to reject the opposition against European patent No. 1 928 879 (patent in suit).

II. During opposition proceedings, the appellant requested the revocation of the patent in suit in its entirety, on the basis of following grounds for opposition: Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC and Article 100(c) EPC.

The opposition division decided, inter alia, not to admit D16 to D18 into the proceedings.

III. The following documents, cited during the opposition proceedings, are relevant for the present decision: (see PDF)

D1 WO 2004/081013 A1

D15 Results of MK2 inhibition

D16 Polanc, S., Stanovnik, B., Tisler, M., Synthesis, 1975, 3, pages 175 to 176

D17 Stanovnik, B., Tisler, M., Zigon, V., Monatshefte für Chemie, 1972, 103, pages 1624 to 1631

D18 Barlin, G. B., Brown, I. L., Golic, L., Kaucic, V., Aust. J. Chem., 1982, 35, pages 423 to 430

D19 WO 98/08847 A1

D20 Böhm, H.-J., Flohr, A., Stahl, M., Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2004, 1, pages 217 to 224

IV. In the course of the appeal proceedings, the board issued a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 in preparation for the oral proceedings, which had been scheduled as per the parties' requests. In this communication, the board set out why the appeal was likely to be dismissed.

V. By letter of 30 October 2020, the appellant informed the EPO that it would not be attending the oral proceedings.

VI. By letter of 20 November 2020, the oral proceedings were cancelled.

VII. The parties' requests relevant for this decision were as follows.

The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent in suit be revoked in its entirety.

The patent proprietor (respondent) requested:

(i) that the appeal be held inadmissible,

(ii) that the appeal be dismissed if it was held admissible,

(iii) that oral proceedings be arranged if neither of the two previous requests could be granted,

(iv) that D16 to D18 not be admitted into the appeal proceedings.

VIII. The appellant's arguments, in so far as they are relevant for the present decision, can be summarised as follows.

Disclaimer (1) contained the feature "N(Me)2". The corresponding definition in the application as filed, however, referred to "NH(Me)2". Thus, a hydrogen atom had been deleted compared with the application as filed. However, it was also conceivable that the substituent "NH(Me)2" was an ammonium group or that it contained one methyl group too many. The amendment related to disclaimer (1) was therefore not a correction of an obvious error pursuant to Rule 139 EPC. Undisclosed disclaimer (2) related, inter alia, to imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine-8-amine. This compound, however, did not even fall under the subject-matter of claim 1 without disclaimer (2). Disclaimer (2) therefore excluded more than was necessary to restore novelty, contravening G 1/03. Therefore, the subject-matter claimed by the patent as granted extended beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 100(c) EPC.

The opposition division's decision not to admit D16, D17 and D18 was wrong. These documents were novelty-destroying for at least some of the claims of the patent as granted.

D1 was the closest prior art. The compounds referred to in claims 1 to 6, 12, 13 and 15 to 19 differed from those in D1 in that they were based on a different scaffold: whereas the compounds in D1 were based on pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidines, those in the patent in suit were derived from imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazines. The structural definition in the claims as granted was very broad and it was not credible that activity inhibiting MAPKAP kinase-2 (MK2) was achieved over the whole breadth of the claims as granted. This was also evident from D12. Even if the MK2-inhibiting effect were to be acknowledged over the whole breadth of the claimed compounds, and thus the objective technical problem were to be considered the provision of further MK2 inhibitors, the solution to this problem would have been obvious on the basis of either D1 alone or a combination of D1 with D19. As was evident from D20, scaffold hopping was a well-established approach for providing alternative compounds. Furthermore, D1 indicated that the compounds it disclosed could be used to treat allergies and Alzheimer's disease. The skilled person would have looked for compounds for the treatment of these conditions because compounds of this type could be MK2 inhibitors. In the course of this search, the skilled person would have come across D19 as it dealt with compounds for treating those conditions. The scaffold of the compounds in D19 was the same as that in the patent in suit. The substitution patterns of the compounds in D1 and D19 overlapped to a great extent. The skilled person would therefore have tested the compounds of D19 for their anti-MK2 activity and in so doing would have arrived at the subject-matter of claims 1 to 6, 12, 13 and 15 to 19 of the patent as granted in an obvious manner.

IX. The respondent's arguments, in so far as they are relevant for the present decision, can be summarised as follows.

In its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant failed to deal with the reasons for the decision in a manner specific enough to put the board and the respondent in a position to immediately understand the reasons why the decision under appeal was alleged to be incorrect. The appeal was therefore not admissible.

The decision under appeal was correct where disclaimer (1) was concerned. The related amendment was a correction of an obvious error pursuant to Rule 139 EPC. The appellant's objection against disclaimer (2) was at best an objection for an alleged lack of clarity.

The appellant's novelty objections were based on D16 to D18 only, i.e. documents which the opposition division had not admitted into the proceedings. The appellant did not request the admission of these documents nor did it provide any arguments as to why they should now be admitted on appeal. Furthermore, the opposition division had applied the right principle of prima facie relevance. D16 to D18 should therefore not be admitted.

D1 was the closest prior art. The compounds referred to in claims 1 to 6, 12, 13 and 15 to 19 differed from those in D1 on account of the use of a different scaffold. The patent in suit listed a large number of compounds that satisfied the structural definition in the claims. Most of them were tested according to one of the assays described in the patent in suit and, as was evident from D15, each of the tested compounds showed MK2-inhibiting activity. The opposition division had acknowledged that D15 provided sufficient evidence to confirm that the claimed compounds were MK2 inhibitors. The appellant had not discharged its burden of proof. Thus, the objective technical problem was the provision of further MK2 inhibitors. Scaffold hopping might have been one avenue that the skilled person could have pursued, but there would have been no reasonable expectation of success in retaining the activity of the compounds disclosed in D1. D19 was concerned with a different mode of action from that in the patent in suit. It was therefore irrelevant to the solution of the objective technical problem. The subject-matter of the claims as granted therefore involved an inventive step.

Admissibility of the appeal (Article 110 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC)

1. The respondent requested that the appeal be held inadmissible because "it fails to deal with the reasons for the decision in a manner specific enough to put the Board and Patentee in a position to immediately understand the reasons why the decision is alleged to be incorrect" (page 4, paragraph 3 in its reply to the statement of grounds of appeal).

2. In opposition proceedings, the appellant had objected to claim 1 as granted under Article 100(c) EPC because the definition of disclaimer (1), i.e. the feature

"(1) if X is NH(Me), N(Me)2, NH(unsubstituted phenyl), or NHNH2, then Y is other than hydrogen or halogen" (emphasis added),

differed from the corresponding definition in the application as filed, which referred to "NH(Me)2" instead of "N(Me)2". The opposition division held that this amendment was a correction under Rule 139 EPC and hence allowable (decision under appeal, point 3.3.2 on page 4). In its statement of grounds of appeal (point 1.1 on pages 3 et seq.), the appellant reiterated this objection and set out why it did not agree with the opposition division's conclusion. This alone is enough to render the appeal admissible from a substantive point of view (Rule 99(2) EPC).

3. The appellant also set out in detail why the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty and in doing so addressed the reasoning in the opposition division's decision (see in particular the two last paragraphs on page 10, the paragraph bridging pages 14 and 15 and the first full paragraph of page 15 of the statement of grounds of appeal). Furthermore, the statement of grounds of appeal contains detailed arguments as regards lack of inventive step. The respondent was able to deal with each of these objections in detail in its reply to the statement of grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, it had to be concluded that the appellant had sufficiently substantiated each ground for opposition invoked by it in its statement of grounds of appeal. Consequently, the board decides that the appeal is admissible.

Patent in suit as granted

5. The patent in suit as granted contains 19 claims.

5.1 Independent claim 1 reads as follows:

"A compound according to formula (I),

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

or an enantiomer, diastereomer, or a pharmaceutically-acceptable salt, thereof, wherein:

E is C; F is N;

X is NR4R5;

Z is CR3;

Y is selected from hydrogen, halogen, nitro, cyano, SR8, S(O)pR8, OR8, NR6R7, CO2R8, C(=O)R8, O-C(=O)R8, C(=O)NR8R9, cycloalkyl, cycloalkenyl, cycloalkynyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl, provided that if Y is hydrogen then R4 is phenyl substituted with a carboxamido group;

R1 and R2 are independently selected from (i) hydrogen, alkyl, halogen, nitro, cyano, SR10, OR10, NR10R11, NR10C(=O)R11, CO2R10, C(=O)R10, -O-C(=O)R10, C(=O)NR10R11;

R3 is selected from hydrogen, halogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, nitro, cyano, SR13, OR13, NR13R14, NR13C(=O)R14, CO2R13, C(=O)R13, -O-C(=O)R13, -C(=O)NR13R14, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl;

R4, R5, R6, and R7 are independently selected from hydrogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, OR15, SR15, C(=O)R15, CO2R15, C(=O)NR15R16, C(W)OR16, S(O)pR17, SO2NR15R16, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl; or (ii) R4 is taken together with R5 and the nitrogen atom to which they are both attached and/or R6 is taken together with R7 and the nitrogen atom to which they are both attached to form a heteroaryl or heterocyclo;

R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R14, R15, and R16 at each occurrence are independently selected from (i) hydrogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, and heterocyclo; or (ii) together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached, R8 is taken together with R9, and/or R10 is taken together with R11, and/or R13 is taken together with R14, and/or R15 is taken together with R16 to form a heteroaryl or heterocyclo;

R17 is selected from alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, and heterocyclo;

W at each occurrence is O, S, N, CN, or NH; and

p is 1 or 2,

with the following provisos:

(1) if X is NH(Me), N(Me)2, NH(unsubstituted phenyl), or NHNH2, then Y is other than hydrogen or halogen; and

(2) the following compounds are excluded:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC"

5.2 Claims 2 to 4 are dependent on claim 1.

5.3 Independent claim 5 reads as follows:

"A compound of formula (Ia):

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

or an enantiomer, diastereomer, or a pharmaceutically-acceptable salt, thereof, wherein:

X is NR4R5;

Y is hydrogen, halogen, OR8, or NR6R7;

R1 and R2 are independently selected from (i) hydrogen, alkyl, halogen, nitro, cyano, SR10, OR10, NR10R11, NR10C(=O)R11, CO2R10, C(=O)R10, -O-C(=O)R10, C(=O)NR10R11;

R3 is selected from hydrogen, halogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, nitro, cyano, SR13, OR13, NR13R14, NR13C(=O)R14, CO2R13, C(=O)R13, -O-C(=O)R13, -C(=O)NR13R14, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl;

R4 is -AM;

R5 is hydrogen or C1-4alkyl;

or R4 and R5 together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached form a 5-, 6- or 7-membered monocyclic heteroaryl or heterocyclo ring, or a 7- to 11-membered bicyclic heteroaryl or heterocyclo ring, each ring optionally substituted with one to three groups, T1, T2; and/or T3;

A is a bond, C1-3alkylene, C2-4alkenylene, C2-4alkynylene, -C(O)-, or -SO2-; M is (i) hydrogen, NR15R16, alkyl, alkoxy, or alkenyl; or (ii) cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, or heteroaryl, each ring optionally substituted by one to three groups, T1, T2, and/or T3;

R6 is selected from hydrogen or C1-4alkyl optionally substituted by one to three groups selected from halogen, C1-4alkyl, nitro, cyano, amino, C1-4alkoxy, and OH;

R7 is selected from alkyl, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl, each group of which is optionally substituted by one to three groups, T4, T5, and/or T6;

or R6 and R7 together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached form a heteroaryl or heterocyclo ring, each ring is optionally substituted by one to three groups, T4, T5, and/or T6;

R8 is selected from alkyl, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl, each group of which is optionally substituted by one to three groups, T4, T5, and/or T6;

R10, R11, R13, and R14 at each occurrence are independently selected from (i) hydrogen, C1-4alkyl, and substituted C1-4alkyl; or (ii) R10 and R11 together with the nitrogen atom they are both attached, and/or R13 and R14 together with the nitrogen atom they are both attached combine to form an optionally substituted 5-, 6-, or 7-membered heteroaryl or heterocyclo;

R15 and R16 are independently selected from (i) hydrogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, and heterocyclo; or (ii) together with the nitrogen atom to which they are attached R15 is taken together with R16 to form a heteroaryl or heterocyclo;

T1, T2, and T3 are independently selected from (i) halogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, nitro, cyano, SO3H SR19, S(O)pR21, S(O)pNR19R20, NR19S(O)pR21 , OR19, NR19R20, NR19C(=O)20, NR19C(=O)NR19R20, CO2R19, C(=O)R19, -O-C(=O)R19, -C(=O)NR19R20, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl, wherein p is one or 2; and/or (ii) two groups, T1 and T2, located on adjacent ring atoms are taken together with the ring atoms to which they are attached to form a fused cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, or heterocyclo;

T4, T5 and T6 are independently selected from (i) halogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, nitro, cyano, SR19, OR19, NR19R20, NR19C(=O)R20, CO2R19, C(=O)R19, -O-C(=O)R19, -C(=O)NR19R20, cycloalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, and heteroaryl; and/or (ii) two groups, T4 and T5, substituted on adjacent ring atoms are taken together with the ring atoms to which they are attached to form a fused cyclalkyl, heterocyclo, aryl, or heteroaryl; and

R19 and R20 at each occurrence are selected independently from (i) hydrogen, alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, and heterocyclo; or (ii) R19 and R20 together with the nitrogen atom to which they are both attached form a heteroaryl or heterocyclo ring; and

R21 at each occurrence, is selected from alkyl, substituted alkyl, alkenyl, substituted alkenyl, alkynyl, substituted alkynyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, heteroaryl, and heterocyclo;

with the following provisos:

(1) if X is NH(Me), N(Me)2, NH(unsubstituted phenyl), or NHNH2, then Y is other than hydrogen or halogen; and

(2) the following compounds are excluded:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC"

5.4 Claims 6 to 13 are dependent on claims 1 and/or 5.

5.5 Independent claim 14 is a product claim directed at different specific compounds.

5.6 Independent claim 15 reads as follows:

"A pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more compounds according claim 1 or 14 and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or diluent."

5.7 Independent claim 16 is a second medical use claim relating to the treatment of various conditions. It may be reproduced in abridged form as follows:

"A compound according to claim 1 or 14 for use in the treatment, in a mammal, of [various conditions]."

5.8 Claims 17 to 19 are dependent on claim 16.

6. Amendments (Article 100(c) EPC)

6.1 According to the appellant, the two provisos at the end of claim 1, i.e.

"(1) if X is NH(Me), N(Me)2, NH(unsubstituted phenyl), or NHNH2, then Y is other than hydrogen or halogen; and

(2) the following compounds are excluded:

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC"

gave rise to objections under Article 100(c) EPC. In line with the appellant's wording, the two provisos are referred to as "disclaimer (1)" and "disclaimer (2)".

6.2 Disclaimer (1)

The appellant argued that the application as filed (page 4, line 23; page 29, line 26; page 122, line 19; page 127, line 13) defined disclaimer (1) differently, namely as follows (emphasis added):

"(1) if E is C, F is N, Z is CR3, and X is NH(Me), NH(Me)2, NH(unsubstituted phenyl), or NHNH2, then Y is other than hydrogen or halogen".

The replacement of "NH(Me)2" (application as filed) with "N(Me)2" (claim 1 as granted) was not a correction of an obvious error pursuant to Rule 139 EPC as held by the opposition division, and was not allowable.

This is not convincing. "Me" is a well-known abbreviation for a methyl group (-CH3) and is also defined as such in the application as filed (page 54, line 28). When reading disclaimer (1) in the application as filed it is immediately obvious that the mention of "NH(Me)2" for the substituent X must be incorrect. The first possibility is that this group lacks the indication of a positive charge and/or a corresponding counter-anion. This is because the nitrogen would be bound to four moieties (1x H, 2x Me, 1x the characteristic imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine) and thus would only have four valency electrons (whereas it needs five in an uncharged state). The second possibility is that the nitrogen atom is in an uncharged state and one of the moieties H and Me in "NH(Me)2" is superfluous. In the latter case, the nitrogen would be bound to three moieties and would have one non-bonded electron pair, resulting in five valency electrons.

The skilled person would rule out the first possibility because all the other alternatives mentioned for X in disclaimer (1) in the application as filed result in molecules with an uncharged amino group, and because salts in the form R-N**(+)H(Me)2 (with R being the characteristic imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine moiety, and with whichever counter-anion) are already accounted for by the fact that claim 1 relates to "pharmaceutically-acceptable salts" of compounds of formula (I).

When considering the second possibility, the skilled person would further recognise that it is the hydrogen atom in "NH(Me)2" that is superfluous, not one of the two methyl groups. This is simply because leaving out one methyl group would lead to "NHMe", i.e. to the group mentioned just before "NH(Me)2" in the passages of the application as filed, which would obviously make no sense.

In summary, when reading the definition of disclaimer (1) in the application as filed the skilled person would recognise not only that the mention of "NH(Me)2" must be erroneous, but also that what was actually intended was N(Me)2. Therefore, the amendment in disclaimer (1) is a correction of an obvious error pursuant to Rule 139 EPC and hence allowable.

6.3 Disclaimer (2)

Disclaimer (2) is an undisclosed disclaimer according to G 1/03 (OJ 2004, 413). Therefore, it should not remove more than necessary to restore novelty. According to the appellant, however, the exclusion of compound

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

did not meet this condition "da diese Verbindung auch ohne den Disclaimer (2) nicht vom Anspruch 1 erfasst wird" (statement of grounds of appeal, page 8, paragraph 1).

This argument is not convincing as it is a contradiction in itself. If a given compound does not fall within the subject-matter of a claim, e.g. because it is not encompassed by a structural definition, it cannot be excluded from it by means of a disclaimer. To put it another way, a disclaimer directed at this compound does not actually remove anything from the subject-matter before the addition of said disclaimer. The disclaimer therefore cannot remove more than necessary e.g. to restore novelty. For the sake of completeness, it is pointed out that an objection under Article 84 EPC against claim 1 in view of such an apparent contradiction would not have been admissible as this contradiction was already present in the claims as granted (G 3/14, OJ 2015, A102).

6.4 The reasoning above also applies to claim 5 of the patent as granted, which recites the same disclaimers (1) and (2), and, mutatis mutandis, to claims 2 to 4, 6 to 13 and 15 to 19. The appellant's objections are not relevant for claim 14 because this claim does not recite disclaimers (1) and (2). It must therefore be concluded that the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(c) EPC does not prejudice maintenance of the patent as granted.

7. Clarity (Article 84 EPC), unity (Article 82 EPC), scope of protection (Article 123(3) EPC)

Under the last point of its statement of grounds of appeal (point 4, starting on page 27) the appellant made further remarks about the patent as granted. In its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, the board explained that these remarks related to an alleged lack of clarity of the claims as granted or to an alleged lack of unity and/or extension of the scope of protection of the patent as granted. The board also set out why objections based on those remarks were either not admissible (objections relating to an alleged lack of clarity; see G 3/14, OJ 2015, A102) or not relevant (objections relating to an alleged lack of unity; see G 1/91, OJ 1992, 253; objections relating to an alleged extension of the scope of protection of a granted patent cannot be relevant where the patent in its granted form is at issue). The appellant did not comment on this in the further course of the appeal proceedings. It is therefore to be concluded that none of these remarks prejudices maintenance of the patent as granted.

8. Novelty (Articles 100(a) and 54 EPC)

The opposition division had decided not to admit D16 to D18 into the proceedings because they were not prima facie relevant (decision under appeal, point 2.2 on page 3). Nevertheless, in its statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant put forward novelty objections based on these documents - and on these documents only.

A board of appeal should only overrule the way in which a department of first instance has exercised its discretion when deciding on a particular case if it concludes that that department has done so according to the wrong principles, or without taking into account the right principles, or in an unreasonable way, and has thus exceeded the proper limits of its discretion (G 7/93, OJ 1994, 775; point 2.6 of the reasons). However, the appellant did not even assert that the opposition division had taken into account the wrong principles or that it had taken into account the right principles but in an unreasonable way. As a matter of fact, the appellant merely stated that it did not share the opposition division's opinion. In its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020, the board expressed its preliminary view that the opposition division seemed to have exercised its discretion according to the right principle (prima facie relevance) and in a reasonable manner. The appellant did not make any other comments in this respect in the further course of the appeal proceedings.

Therefore, the board decides to not admit D16 to D18 into the proceedings pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, which is applicable pursuant to Article 25(2) RPBA 2020. In view of this, the merits of the appellant's objections need not be assessed. It is to be concluded that the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(a) EPC - lack of novelty - does not prejudice maintenance of the patent as granted either.

9. Inventive step (Articles 100(a) and 56 EPC)

9.1 Like the patent in suit (paragraph [0002]), D1 (page 1, lines 6 to 10) relates to compounds that inhibit MK2. On this basis, both parties agreed that D1 was the closest prior art.

9.2 The compounds in claims 1 and 5 of the patent in suit differ from those in D1 in that the central scaffold is different. More specifically, claims 1 and 5 of the patent in suit relate to imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazines while D1 refers to pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidines. The difference between these scaffolds is that the nitrogen and carbon bridgehead atoms (bridging the two nitrogen heterocycles) are interchanged.

9.3 In its example section (paragraphs [0114] to [0189]), the patent in suit lists a large number of compounds which satisfy claims 1 and 5. Most of these compounds were tested according to one of the assays described in the patent in suit (paragraphs [0111] and [0112]). The results are summarised in D15 and show that the tested compounds have MK2-inhibiting activity.

In this context, the appellant argued that the structural definition in the claims as granted was very broad and that the compounds actually illustrated in the patent in suit represented only a very small fraction of them, with the claims also covering oligomeric and polymeric compounds, for example. Consequently, it was not credible that MK2-inhibiting activity was achieved over the whole breadth of the claims. D12 (page 1247, left-hand column, paragraph 2) also made it clear that the structural breadth of active compounds was much narrower than what was claimed in the patent in suit.

This is not convincing. It may be true that the compounds illustrated in the patent in suit do not cover the entire breadth of the structural definition in the claims and that they instead form "subgroups" of the broader Markush formulae, as argued by the appellant. However, this alone does not lead to the conclusion that MK2-inhibiting activity would not be credible for compounds which meet the structural definition in the claims but do not, in the appellant's view, fall within one of the subgroups formulated by the appellant. In the case in hand, it is down to the appellant to demonstrate that not all of the compounds actually covered by the structural definition in the claims as granted have MK2-inhibiting activity. This is all the more the case in this appeal case because the opposition division had already decided that this line of argument was not convincing (decision under appeal, point 7.5 on page 8) and the board addressed this point specifically in its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020. The appellant did not discharge its burden of proof simply by making this allegation. Furthermore, there is nothing in D12 to indicate that the objective technical problem was not solved over the entire breadth of the claims.

Thus, the objective technical problem is the provision of further (i.e. alternative) MK2 inhibitors.

9.4 The solution to this objective technical problem in the form of the compounds defined in claims 1 and 5 as granted is not suggested by either D1 alone or a combination of D1 with D19.

9.4.1 It may well be true that structural modifications such as "scaffold hopping" are routine practice for the skilled person trying to provide alternative compounds that still have the same activity as the starting compounds, as argued by the appellant. But at the same time it is also well known that structural modifications of this kind may have a big impact on the activity of a given compound (D20: page 217, right-hand column, lines 7 to 12). Therefore, if the skilled person were to modify the scaffold of a particular chemical compound, they would not normally have any reasonable expectation of success in retaining its activity.

9.4.2 The appellant also argued that D1 (page 33, lines 4 to 30, in particular lines 8 and 14) stated that the MK2 inhibitors it disclosed were effective at treating e.g. allergies and Alzheimer's disease. These conditions could also be treated with the compounds in D19, some of which were based on the same imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine scaffold as the compounds in claims 1 and 5 of the patent in suit (D19: page 19, line 26 to page 20, line 23, in particular page 19, line 30 and page 20, line 6; page 6, formula I-B together with page 11, lines 1 to 2). The skilled person would have recognised the overlap between the substitution pattern of the pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine scaffold in D1 and that of the imidazo[1,2-b]pyridazine scaffold in D19. The skilled person would therefore have also tested the compounds in D19 for their activity towards MK2 and in so doing would have arrived at the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 as granted in an obvious manner.

This is not convincing. D19 is concerned with compounds that block the receptor sites for corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF), i.e. with CRF antagonists (page 1, lines 7 to 12). This mode of action is different from that underlying the compounds of claims 1 and 5 as granted, namely the inhibition of MK2 (paragraph [0010]). Thus, when faced with the objective technical problem of providing further MK2 inhibitors, the skilled person would have had no reason to turn to a document which is concerned with a completely different mode of action.

9.5 On the basis of above, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 involves an inventive step. The same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to independent claims 15 and 16 and dependent claims 2 to 4, 6, 12, 13 and 17 to 19. Because the appellant only objected to claims 1 to 6, 12, 13 and 15 to 19, it is to be concluded that the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(a) EPC - lack of inventive step - does not prejudice maintenance of the patent as granted either.

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