Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t152258eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 2258/15 (PTK7 antibodies/SQUIBB) 16-01-2020
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 2258/15 (PTK7 antibodies/SQUIBB) 16-01-2020

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T225815.20200116
Date of decision
16 January 2020
Case number
T 2258/15
Petition for review of
-
Application number
06848508.5
IPC class
C07K16/30
C07K16/40
A61P35/00
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 431.18 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Human monoclonal antibodies to protein tyrosine kinase 7 (PTK7) and their use

Applicant name
E. R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C.
Opponent name
Albrecht von Menges
Board
3.3.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
Keywords
Inventive step - (no)
Catchword
-
Cited decisions
-
Citing decisions
-

I. Appeals against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division that European patent No. 1 957 539 in an amended form, based on auxiliary request 6, met the requirements of the EPC, were filed both by the patent proprietor (appellant I) and by the opponent (appellant II). The patent is based on European patent application No. 06 848 508.5 and has the title "Human monoclonal antibodies to protein tyrosine kinase 7 (PTK7) and their use".

II. The patent was opposed on the grounds of lack of novelty (Article 100(a) EPC and Article 54 EPC), lack of an inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC and Article 56 EPC), lack of sufficient disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC and Article 123(2) EPC).

III. The opposition division considered a main and six auxiliary requests. Auxiliary request 6 was held to meet the requirements of the EPC.

IV. With their statement of grounds of appeal, appellant I submitted sets of claims of a main request and of auxiliary requests 1 to 12.

V. Claim 1 of the main request (claim 1 as granted) reads:

"1. An isolated human monoclonal antibody, or an antigen-binding portion thereof, wherein the antibody:

(a) specifically binds to human PTK7; and

(b) binds to a Wilms' tumor cell line having ATCC Acc No. CRL-1441 with an EC50 of 4.0 nM or less, in an assay which comprises incubating 1 x 10**(5) cells with the antibody at a starting concentration of 30µg/ml and serially diluting the antibody at a 1:10 dilution; and

(c) binds to the same epitope on human PTK7 as a reference antibody comprising:

(i) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7; or

(ii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:8; or

(iii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:10".

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 is identical to claim 1 of the main request.

Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 1 and 4 are identical to claim 1 of the main request, except that they include the feature "and assessing binding to the cells by flow cytometry" at the end of part (b).

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 is identical to claim 1 of the main request, except that part (c)(ii) of the main request is deleted, while part (iii) is renumbered (ii).

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 combines the amendments made in claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 and those made in claim 1 of auxiliary request 3.

Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 6 and 7 differ from claim 1 of the main request in that part (b) contains the additional final feature "washing the cells, and detecting binding with a PE-labelled anti-human IgG antibody using flow cytometric analysis".

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 8 combines the features of claim 1 of auxiliary requests 6 and 7 with claim 1 of auxiliary request 3.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 9 reads:

"1. An immunoconjugate comprising a therapeutic agent, such as a cytotoxin or a radioactive isotope, linked to a human monoclonal antibody, or an antigen binding portion thereof, wherein the antibody:

(a) specifically binds to human PTK7; and

(b) binds to a Wilms' tumor cell line having ATCC Acc No. CRL-1441 with an EC50 of 4.0 nM or less, in an assay which comprises incubating 1 x 10**(5)cells with the antibody at a starting concentration of 30myg/ml and serially diluting the antibody at a 1:10 dilution; and

(c) binds to the same epitope on human PTK7 as a reference antibody comprising:

(i) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7; or

(ii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:3 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO 8; or

(iii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:10.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 reads:

"1. An isolated human monoclonal antibody, or antigen-binding portion thereof,

which comprises:

(a) a heavy chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:12,

a heavy chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO:16,

a heavy chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:20,

a light chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:25,

a light chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO:31 and

a light chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:37; or

(b) a heavy chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:14,

a heavy chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO:18,

a heavy chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:22,

a light chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:28,

a light chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO:34 and

a light chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:40; or

(c) a heavy chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:13,

a heavy chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO: 17,

a heavy chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:21,

a light chain variable region CDRl comprising SEQ ID NO:26,

a light chain variable region CDR2 comprising SEQ ID NO:32 and

a light chain variable region CDR3 comprising SEQ ID NO:38.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 11 is the same as claim 1 of the main request except that part (b) includes the additional feature "washing the cells and detecting binding with a PE-labelled anti-human IgG antibody; and performing flow cytometry analysis using a FACScan flow cytometer".

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 12 (auxiliary request 6 before the opposition division) reads:

"1. An isolated human monoclonal antibody, or an antigen-binding portion thereof, wherein the antibody:

(a) specifically binds to human PTK7; and

(b) binds to a Wilms' tumor cell line having ATCC Acc No. CRL-1441 with an EC50 of 4.0 nM or less, in an assay which comprises incubating 1 x 10**(5) cells with the antibody at a starting concentration of 30 myg/ml and serially diluting the antibody at a 1:10 dilution; washing the cells and detecting binding with a PE-labelled anti-human IgG antibody; and performing flow cytometry analysis using a FACScan flow cytometer;

and

(c) binds to the same epitope on human PTK7 as a reference antibody comprising:

(i) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7; or

(ii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 10".

VI. In their statement of grounds of appeal appellant II inter alia submitted arguments with respect to lack of inventive step of the subject-matter of the claims maintained by the opposition division (identical to present auxiliary request 12).

VII. In their reply to appellant II's statement of grounds of appeal, appellant I provided argumentation with respect to the inventive step of the subject-matter of auxiliary request 12.

VIII. The board issued a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA setting out its non-binding preliminary appreciation of substantive and legal matters concerning the appeals. In that communication the board inter alia informed the parties that "In the board's preliminary opinion, the rabbit anti-PTK7 polyclonal antibodies disclosed in document D2 can be taken to represent the closest prior art for the claimed invention. The difference between these antibodies and the claimed ones lies in the type of antibody. In particular, the antibodies of claim 1 are monoclonal and human, whereas those disclosed in document D2 are polyclonal and rabbit. The technical effect of this difference is that the claimed antibodies are more suitable for treatment of human patients. The board is of the preliminary view that good internalisation properties cannot be considered a technical feature of the claimed antibodies essentially for the reasons set out by appellant II (see statement of grounds of appeal, sections 2.3.4 to 2.5). Thus the technical problem to be solved can be formulated as the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies suitable for the treatment of human patients" (see point 11 of that communication).

IX. In response, appellant I informed the board that they would not attend the oral proceedings.

X. Oral proceedings before the board took place on 16 January 2020. At the end of these proceedings, the chair announced the decision of the board.

XI. The following documents are referred to in this decision.

D2: WO 2005/063987

D8: WO 02/100348

D9: WO 01/09187

XII. The relevant arguments of appellant I, submitted in writing, are summarised as follows:

Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

Auxiliary request 12 - claim 1

The claim was for antibodies with a surprisingly high level of binding affinity to the target antigen PTK7, which exhibited a surprisingly high level of internalisation into the cell bearing said target antigen.

The problem to be solved was the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies having improved functional characteristics compared to those of the prior art.

Improved internalisation of the claimed antibodies was directly demonstrated in Example 8 of the patent. Antibodies that bind to the epitope group defined by feature (c) of claim 1 are found to internalise better than antibodies binding to a different epitope group. Specifically, monoclonal antibodies 4D5, 12C6 and 7C8 internalise into Wilms' tumour cells more effectively than the monoclonal antibody 3G8, which binds a different epitope, see the sentence beginning 7 lines from the bottom of page 83 of the application as filed. In fact, the reference antibodies of claim 1 were at least 2.5 fold more effective than monoclonal antibody 3G8 at internalisation into Wilms' tumour cells when measured in the same assay (EC50 of 0.6437nM for 3G8 versus 0.2516nM for 4D5). Example 8 furthermore demonstrated that at least antibodies 12C6 and 7C8 also internalise well into two other tumour cell lines (A-431 and PC3).

The skilled person would have understood from the application as filed that all of the claimed antibodies exhibited this good internalisation effect, which was clearly related to the technical problem initially suggested, being a desirable improvement.

Thus "the opposition division were correct in their conclusion that the problem could be reformulated as the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies with good internalisation properties. The internalisation properties demonstrated in the opposed patent must be taken into account when assessing inventive step" (see reply to appellant II's statement of grounds of appeal, page 6, first full paragraph).

The opposition division had also been correct to consider that it was plausible to the skilled person from Example 8 that the "epitope group" of the antibodies tested in the assay is responsible for the differences in their internalisation properties. "The only demonstrated difference between the "good" internalising antibodies (4D5, 12C6 and 7C8) and the "bad" internalising antibody (3G8), is the difference in epitope group" (see the reply to appellant II's statement of grounds of appeal, page 6, third full paragraph). All of the antibodies were raised using the same protocols (Examples 1 and 2) and, to the extent that they were compared, their other properties appeared to be similar, see for example Figure 15. Thus it was plausible that the difference in internalisation properties was linked to the difference in epitope group. No evidence had been submitted to suggest any alternative conclusion.

XIII. The relevant arguments of appellant II, submitted in writing and at the oral proceedings, are summarised as follows:

Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

Auxiliary request 12 - claim 1

Document D2 could be considered to represent the closest prior art. It disclosed PTK7 as well as anti-PTK7 antibodies (note that PTK7 was referred to as GP153 in document D2). Human anti-PTK7 antibodies and their use for the treatment of carcinoma were explicitly mentioned.

The difference between the claimed antibodies and those disclosed in document D2 was that the former were characterised by functional features (b) and (c) of the claim.

The objective technical problem in view of this prior art was the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies suitable for human administration.

A detailed protocol on how to obtain monoclonal antibodies against the protein GP153 or fragments thereof was given on page 53, lines 3 to 12 of document D2.

A skilled person at the relevant date would have known how to raise the fully human monoclonal antibodies using HuMab mice as disclosed in documents D8 or D9.

Starting from the disclosure in document D2, the skilled person seeking a solution to the technical problem would have combined the disclosure in document D2 with that in document D8 or D9. Indeed, at the priority date of the patent in suit, a skilled person would have known that fully human antibodies could be generated against proteins of the protein tyrosine kinase receptor family and this conclusion was explicitly confirmed in document D8.

No particular technical effect was associated with the epitope bound by the reference antibodies and the antibodies of the patent were obtained as anti-PTK 7 antibodies without particular screening or selection steps.

The affinity of the antibodies disclosed in document D2 for their target was characterised as at least 1 x 10**(-6) M, preferably up to 1 x 10**(-10) M (page 32, lines 6 to 9). The preparation of rabbit polyclonal-anti-GP153 antibodies was illustrated in Example 10. The EC50 value was in the range of 2 x 10**(-3) to 2 x 10**(-4) for different anti-sera (page 52, Example 10). Thus, the binding affinity was not a surprising feature.

The opposition division in the decision under appeal had accepted that antibodies 4D5 and 7C8 (i.e. the reference antibodies specified in feature group (c) of claim 1) were internalised better than other anti-PTK7 antibodies and this had been the basis for acknowledging inventive step. However, the subject-matter of claim 1 was not characterised by an internalisation feature. Internalisation was also not an inherent feature of the claimed antibodies. There was no evidence in the patent that the internalisation of the anti-PTK7 antibodies was affected by the epitope bound. The term "internalisation" was not used in the opposed patent outside of Example 8, which did not show that internalisation was due to a particular epitope bound by the antibodies and did not even allow the conclusion that the antibodies 4D5 and 7C8 were internalised particularly well. The example merely concluded that the data obtained demonstrated that "the anti-PTK7 antibodies 3GB, 4D5, 12C7 and 7C8 internalize into cancer cells" (page 28, line 25).

Moreover, in view of the error bars in Figure 20A, Example 8 did allow the conclusion that antibody 4D5 was better internalised than antibody 3G8. The epitope bound by the antibody 4D5 had not identified in the patent.

In summary, no evidence had been presented that the antibodies claimed internalised efficiently or better than expected. This property therefore could not be used to support inventive step of the subject matter of any claim. The claimed antibodies were an obvious solution to the technical problem which the skilled person starting from document D2 could have arrived at using well known techniques.

The main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 11 - claim 1

The arguments for claim 1 of auxiliary request 12 applied equally to all higher ranking claim requests, since its subject-matter was comprised in claim 1 of all said requests.

XIV. Appellant I requested in writing that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained as granted. Alternatively, the patent should be maintained in amended form on the basis of one of the sets of claims of auxiliary requests 1 to 12.

XV. Appellant II requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

1. The appeals comply with Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 99 EPC and are admissible.

2. Appellant I informed the board in writing that they would not be present or represented at the oral proceedings. Accordingly, the oral proceedings were held in their absence, pursuant to Rule 115(2) EPC and they are treated as relying on their written case (Article 15(3) RPBA).

Inventive step - Article 56 EPC

Auxiliary request 12 - claim 1

3. This claim request was auxiliary request 6 in the proceedings before the opposition division and was considered to meet the requirements of the EPC by the opposition division (see decision under appeal, point C).

4. The claimed subject-matter is a human monoclonal antibody defined by the following three functional features: (a) the target protein human PTK7, to which it specifically binds, (b) the ability to bind to a Wilms' tumour cell line and (c) the ability to bind to the same epitope as a reference antibody defined by two pairs of heavy and light chain variable sequences; either

(i) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:7; or

(ii) a heavy chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 and a light chain variable region comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 10".

5. SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 7 represent the amino acid sequences of the heavy and light chain variable regions of exemplified monoclonal antibody 4D5, while SEQ ID NO: 4 and SEQ ID NO: 10 represent the amino acid sequences of the heavy and light chain variable regions of exemplified monoclonal antibody 7C8 (see paragraph [0146] of the patent).

6. According to the patent, the target of the claimed antibodies, protein tyrosine kinase 7 (PTK7), is a member of the receptor protein tyrosine kinase family. Its mRNA is variably expressed in colon carcinoma derived cell lines but not found to be expressed in human adult colon. By immunohistochemistry, tumour specific staining of PTK7 has been observed in breast, colon, lung, pancreatic, kidney and bladder cancers (see paragraphs [0002] and [0003] of the patent).

7. In the decision under appeal, document D2 was taken as representing the closest prior art for the claimed antibodies. This view was maintained by appellant II in the appeal and was not contested by appellant I.

8. Document D2 concerns the same protein as bound by the presently claimed antibodies, i.e. PTK7, which is also referred to therein as GP153. Inter alia, document D2 concerns the human PTK7 protein (see page 6, line 10ff). The document discloses antibodies specifically recognising this protein in general, including human monoclonal antibodies (see paragraph bridging pages 31 and 32). More concretely, Example 10 discloses the production of rabbit polyclonal antibodies capable of binding human PTK7. It is these rabbit polyclonal antibodies disclosed in document D2 that the board considers to represent the closest prior art. These antibodies - while not tested in the assay defined in the present claim - are polyclonal and therefore exhibit a range of affinities and bind to various epitopes on PTK7.

The technical problem

9. The claimed antibodies differ from those disclosed in Example 10 of document D2 in that they are human as opposed to rabbit and that they are monoclonal as opposed to polyclonal. Moreover, they are defined by a certain binding to a Wilms' tumour cell line and also by their binding to the same epitope on human PTK7 as a reference antibody defined in claim 1(c).

10. A technical effect of these differences is that the claimed antibodies are less likely to be immunogenic in humans, by virtue of the fact that they are human antibodies and they are also well defined, in the sense of being monoclonal antibodies, making them more suitable for clinical use.

11. Appellant I argued that the claimed antibodies had further technical effects, these being improved functional characteristics, specifically the level of binding affinity and a surprisingly high level of internalisation. They stated that "the opposition division were correct in their conclusion that the problem could be reformulated as the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies with good internalisation properties. The internalisation properties demonstrated in the opposed patent must be taken into account when assessing inventive step."

12. The board notes, however, that "good internalisation properties" are not a feature mentioned in the claim. It must therefore be determined whether or not "good internalisation properties" are an inherent feature of the claimed antibodies, in particular whether they are a result of the epitope group bound by the antibodies, as alleged by appellant I.

13. Example 8 of the patent concerns "Internalisation of anti-PTK7 monoclonal antibody". It describes how the antibodies 3G8, 4D5, 12C6 and 7C8 were tested for internalisation using a Hum-Zap internalisation assay. It is stated that "the anti-PTK7 antibodies 3G8, 4D5, 12C6 and 7C8 showed an antibody concentration dependent decrease in 3H-thymidine incorporation in the PTK7-expressing Wilms' Tumor cancer cell line" (emphasis added to indicate monoclonal antibodies whose variable regions are comprised in the 'reference' antibodies mentioned in the claim). Example 8 concludes that "This data demonstrates that the anti-PTK7 antibodies 3G8, 4D5, 12C6 and 7C8 internalize into cancer cells" (emphasis added). However, in Example 8 it is not concluded that internalisation is due to a particular epitope bound by these antibodies and no evidence has been put forward that it was recognised in the art that a causal link existed between the epitope bound by an antibody and the antibody's internalisation properties.

14. The patent also discloses that antibodies 7C8, 12C6 are in one epitope group, whereas antibody 3G8 is in a different epitope group (see example 4). The epitope bound by antibody 4D5 was not determined in the patent nor was this antibody assigned to the same epitope group as antibodies 7C8 and 12C6. Accordingly, appellant I's argument that it is plausible from Example 8 that the "epitope group" of the antibodies tested in the assay is responsible for the differences in their internalisation properties fails because this argument is based on the proposition that antibodies 7C8, 12C6 and 4D5 belong to the same antibody group.

15. Furthermore, the board cannot identify any disclosure in the patent that would allow the skilled person to conclude that the degree of internalisation is a property of the epitope group on PTK7 bound by the antibody. Thus, Example 8 does allow the conclusion that antibodies 4D5 and 7C8 represent antibodies which internalise particularly well, while Figure 20A, relied on by appellant I to show that antibody 3G8 is "bad" at being internalised, in fact shows that the internalisation behaviours of antibodies 3G8 and 4D5 are similar enough that they fall within each other's respective error margins.

16. The board is thus not persuaded that the patent demonstrates that internalisation of PTK7 antibodies is a function of the epitopes bound nor that antibodies that bind to the epitope group defined by feature (c) of claim 1 internalise better than antibodies binding to a different epitope group.

17. In view of the above, in the board's judgement "good internalisation properties" are not a feature that can be taken into account in formulating the technical problem.

18. Finally, the range of affinities achievable by such antibodies is given as being "at least 1 x 10**(-6) molar (M), preferably at least 5x10**(-7)M, more preferably at least 1x10**(-7)M, with affinities and avidity is of at least 5x10**(-8)M, 5x10**(-9)M, and 1x10**(-10)M being especially useful" (see document D2, page 32, lines 7 to 9). This range of binding affinity corresponds to that specified in the claims, as can be seen from paragraph [0040] of the patent which states that "an antibody of the invention binds to PTK7 with high affinity, for example with a KD of 1 x 1x10**(-7)M or less". The binding affinity is therefore not a feature that distinguishes the claimed subject-matter from the antibodies disclosed in document D2.

19. Considering the differences between the claimed antibodies and those disclosed in document D2 and the technical effect thereof, the problem to be solved by the claimed subject-matter can be formulated as the provision of anti-PTK7 antibodies suitable for the treatment of human patients.

Obviousness of the claimed solution

20. The question to be answered in assessing obviousness is whether the skilled person seeking to solve the above formulated technical problem and starting from the polyclonal rabbit antibodies disclosed in Example 10 of document D2 would have arrived at the claimed antibodies without inventive effort.

21. The production of monoclonal antibodies against PTK7 is directly suggested in document D2 on page 53, last sentence of the first full paragraph as follows: "fusion products from the positive wells will be further subcloned and tested to generate monoclonal hybridoma lines". Moreover, the general section on "Antibodies and Antibody Producing Cells" (see pages 31 and 32) discloses that "an antibody can be [...] a fully human antibody", and also that "monoclonal antibodies are generally preferred". Processes for producing such human antibodies in mice were routine before the priority date of the patent and are described for example in document D9, where human monoclonal antibodies were produced which had an high affinity for their target antigen (see document D9, page 15, first full paragraph).

22. In view of the above, the board is of the view that the claimed antibodies are among those that the skilled person starting from the disclosure in document D2 would have arrived at as a matter of routine when faced with the technical problem. Thus, the subject-matter of claim 1 was obvious for the skilled person before the relevant date of the patent. Auxiliary request 12 does not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

The main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 11 - claim 1

23. Since the finding of obviousness for the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 12 was arrived at by considering the reference antibodies 4D5 and 7C8, and claim 1 of each of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 11 encompasses these reference antibodies (see section IV), the finding of obviousness extends to the subject-matter of all higher ranking claim requests. Thus, no claim request is allowable.

24. In view of the above, none of the claim requests forming part of the appeal proceedings meets the requirements of Article 56 EPC. Accordingly, the patent cannot be maintained on the basis of any of these requests and, in the absence of another, allowable claim request, the patent has to be revoked.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The decision under appeal is set aside.

The patent is revoked.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility