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 2717/17 (Buprenorphine/ HEXAL) 28-11-2019
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 2717/17 (Buprenorphine/ HEXAL) 28-11-2019

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T271717.20191128
Date of decision
28 November 2019
Case number
T 2717/17
Petition for review of
-
Application number
11784951.3
IPC class
A61K 47/12
A61K 47/14
A61K 31/485
A61K 9/70
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 447.81 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

TRANSDERMAL THERAPEUTIC SYSTEM COMPRISING BUPRENORPHINE

Applicant name
Hexal AG
Opponent name

LTS LOHMANN Therapie-Systeme AG

Generics [U.K.] Limited

Graf von Stosch, Andreas

Board
3.3.07
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
European Patent Convention Art 100(b)
European Patent Convention Art 100(a)
European Patent Convention Art 54
European Patent Convention Art 56
Keywords

Late-filed document - admitted (no)

Late-filed attack on inventive step - admitted (no)

Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)

Novelty - (yes)

Inventive step - (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0003/97
Citing decisions
T 2034/19
T 2036/21

I. European patent No. 2 640 389 was granted on the basis of 15 claims.

Independent claims 1 and 13 read as follows:

"1. A transdermal therapeutic system comprising

1) a backing layer,

2) at least one drug containing adhesive layer containing a transdermal drug delivery composition comprising

i. 1 to 20 % by weight of buprenorphine, based on the total weight of the composition,

ii. an adhesive component, which preferably forms an amorphous mass, comprising a crosslinked acrylic polymer and a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in a ratio of 10 to 90 parts by weight to 90 to 10 parts by weight,

iii. and 1 to 50 % by weight of a penetration enhancer, based on the total weight of the composition, comprising a keto acid, and

3) optionally at least one further adhesive layer, and

4) further optionally, a release liner."

"13. A method of producing a transdermal therapeutic system comprising a backing layer, at least one adhesive layer and a release liner, comprising the steps of

1) preparing a solution comprising

a. buprenorphine,

b. a crosslinkable acrylic polymer,

c. a non-crosslinkable acrylic polymer, and

d. a penetration enhancer comprising a keto acid, and e. optionally one or more of a solubilizer or tackifier,

2) coating the solution on the backing layer or on the release liner,

3) drying the coating to form the at least one adhesive layer, and

4) coating the at least one adhesive layer with the release liner or the backing layer."

II. Three oppositions were filed against the patent on the grounds that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step and was not sufficiently disclosed. The documents cited during the opposition proceedings included the following:

E2: EP 430019

E3: US 6,231,886

E4: US 6,344,211

E5: US 5,240,711

E8: US 6,264,980

E9: EP 819 438

E21: Excerpt from AU Register dated 7 August 2017 concerning opposition against Australian patent 2011331511

III. By decision posted on 9 October 2017, the opposition division rejected the oppositions.

In its decision, the opposition division came to the conclusion that the patent met the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure. Specifically, with regard to the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked polymer, it held that the skilled person would have known how to prepare compositions with the desired ratio taking into account the information disclosed in [0028] of the patent. The claims of the patent were considered novel. As to inventive step, the opposition division considered that E3 was the closest prior art. The transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) defined in claim 1 of the patent differed from those disclosed in E3 in the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. Having regard to the experimental data disclosed in the patent and to those contained in the patent-proprietor's letter of 22 June 2017, the technical problem was the provision of a TTS providing a higher blood plasma level of buprenorphine and thus an increased analgesic effect. There was nothing in the prior art documents that would have prompted the skilled person to add a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer to solve this problem. Hence, the patent met the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

IV. Opponents 1 and 3 ("appellant-opponent 1" and "appellant-opponent 3") filed an appeal against that decision. An appeal was also filed by opponent 2, but it was subsequently withdrawn.

In their statements setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellants focused on the issue of sufficiency of disclosure in relation to the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked acrylic polymer and the requirement of inventive step starting from E3 as the closest prior art.

V. In its reply to the appeals filed on 3 July 2018, the patent-proprietor ("respondent") requested the dismissal of the appeal or, in the alternative, that the patent be maintained on the basis of one of the six auxiliary requests filed during the opposition proceedings on 1 August 2017.

VI. In a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA issued on 12 September 2019, the Board commented on the issues of novelty, sufficiency of disclosure and inventive step. In relation to the requirement of novelty, the Board expressed the view that the patent was novel over E3 and E4. Concerning the sufficiency of disclosure, it observed that paragraph [0028] of the description explained how to calculate the ratio of crosslinked acrylic polymer to non-crosslinked acrylic polymer. As to inventive step, the Board observed that the closest prior art document E3 did not disclose a TTS containing a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. On the basis of the experimental data disclosed in the patent and those submitted by the respondent during the opposition proceedings, the technical problem appeared to be the provision of a TTS providing a higher blood plasma level of buprenorphine. In the Board's view, the prior art did not indicate that combining crosslinked and non-crosslinked acrylic polymers had a positive impact on the blood plasma level of the active ingredient.

VII. The following documents were submitted by appellant-opponent 1 on 14 November 2019:

E29: Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare, 19(3), 2010, 276-278

E30: British Medical Journal, 292, 1986, 746-750

E31: Engineering Statistic Handbook, Chapter 1.3.6.7.2

In the submissions filed on the same date, appellant-opponent 1 commented on the lack of statistic relevance of the respondent's experimental data by referring to E29 to E31. Additionally, it submitted arguments on inventive step starting from E2 or E5 as the closest prior art.

VIII. Oral proceedings were held on 28 November 2019. They were attended by the appellants and the respondent.

IX. The appellants' arguments can be summarised as follows:

(a) Issues of admittance

Documents E29 to E31 described the general knowledge of the skilled person in the field of statistical analysis. The appellants had already commented in their previous submissions on the lack of statistical significance of the respondent's data. Thus, E29 to E31 and the arguments concerning these documents were clearly admissible.

The new attack on inventive step starting from E2 or E5 as the closest prior art was admissible since it was based on documents already on file.

(b) Sufficiency of disclosure

According to paragraph [0028] of the description, the crosslinkable acrylic polymer was preferably completely crosslinked. This statement implied that some non-crosslinked crosslinkable polymer could be present in the adhesive. It was indeed quite common to keep some amount of non-crosslinked crosslinkable polymer in the adhesive to increase its adhesive strength. In the case of partial crosslinking, the patent did not explain how to calculate the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked polymer. No information was give on how to analyse the final product to calculate this ratio. Thus, this ratio was an ambiguous parameter. The respondent did not provide any evidence that the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked was identical to the ratio of the corresponding starting materials. Moreover, since claim 1 was not a product-by-process claim, it made no sense to refer to the starting materials to determine a parameter concerning the final product.

The in vivo study disclosed in the patent could not be reproduced because some information had been omitted such as the size of the patch used and the number of person involved in the study. There was no guidance on how to achieve the effect of increasing the blood plasma levels of buprenorphine. The subject-matter of claim 1 was not sufficiently disclosed also for this reason. The process of claim 13 did not mention any addition of a crosslinking agent. Thus, claim 13 was not sufficiently disclosed since it did not contain an essential feature for carrying out the process.

(c) Novelty

In view of the term "preferably" in claim 1, the feature concerning the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked polymer could be considered optional. In this case, the subject-matter of claim 1 would lack novelty in view of E3 and E4.

(d) Inventive step

The TTS defined in claim 1 differed from the TTS disclosed in example 1 of E3 in the presence of a non-crosslinked polymer in the adhesive. The experimental data disclosed in the patent as well as those submitted by the respondent on 22 June 2017 were not statistically relevant. There was an extensive overlap of the curves representing the buprenorphine plasma levels obtained by the use of the TTS of claim 1 or the TTS of E3. As explained by Professors Poulton and Roberts in E21, it would have been necessary to determine the 95% confidence interval using a t-test to show a statistically significant improvement. In contrast, the standard error of the mean (SEM) used by the respondent was not sufficient to establish a statistically significant improvement. Furthermore, only 12 patients were treated in the study described in the report of 22 June 2017. Similar considerations applied to the in vitro data submitted on 22 June 2017. The experimental data were in any case not sufficient to show that an effect was present over the whole scope of the claim. Hence, the technical problem was the provision of an alternative TTS containing buprenorphine as the active ingredient. Documents E2 and E5 disclosed TTSs containing a mixture of crosslinked and non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. The skilled person would have arrived without any inventive effort at the subject-matter of claim 1 by combining the teachings of E3 with E2 or E5. Furthermore, E9 suggested that the cohesive forces of of an adhesive layer could be improved by using a combination of a crosslinked and non-crosslinked acrylic polymer. Thus, the skilled person would have been encouraged by E9 to test adhesives containing such a combination of acrylic polymers.

The subject-matter of the patent would have also been obvious when starting from E2 or E5 as the closest prior art. In this case, the distinguishing feature of the TTS of claim 1 was the use of a keto acid as penetration enhancer. However, the skilled person would have known from E8 that levulinic acid, a keto acid, was a very effective penetration enhancer. Hence, claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the combinations of the teachings of E2 or E5 with E8.

X. The respondent's arguments can be summarised as follows:

(a) Issues of admittance

Documents E29 and E31 had been filed only two weeks before oral proceedings without any justification. The submissions of 14 November 2019 contained new data and a new attack on inventive step starting from a different closest prior art. This new evidence and new arguments were not admissible.

(b) Sufficiency of disclosure

Paragraph [0028] of the patent explained how the ratio of crosslinked to non-crosslinked acrylic polymer was to be calculated. The appellants were not correct in assuming that the adhesive contained relevant amounts of crosslinkable acrylic polymer that was not crosslinked because the patent taught to carry out a complete process of crosslinking and explained how this was to be done. Thus, as explained in the patent, the ratio recited in claim 1 was equivalent to the ratio of the starting materials.

(c) Novelty

The objections on novelty were based on an incorrect interpretation of claim 1. Contrary to what appellant-opponent 3 affirmed, the term "preferably" only referred to the feature "forms an amorphous mass". Hence, the patent was novel over E3 and E4.

(d) Inventive step

The TTS of the patent differed from the one of E3 in the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. This resulted in an increase of the buprenorphine plasma level. This effect was supported by the data of the patent and the data contained in the report submitted on 22 June 2017. There was no obligation to carry out the statistical analysis that was commonly done for scientific publications. Figure 1 of the report of 22 June 2017 showed that there were at least 11 points in which the curve representing the buprenorphine plasma level for the TTS of claim 1 was above the curve representing the buprenorphine plasma level for the TTS of the prior art. This was convincing evidence of an improved effect. This effect was also supported by the in vitro studies. The technical problem was therefore the provision of a TTS providing a higher blood plasma level of buprenorphine. None of the prior art documents suggested that this effect could be achieved by combining a crosslinked and a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. Thus, the patent met the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

XI. Appellant-opponents 1 and 3 requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

XII. The respondent requested that the appeals be dismissed or that the patent be maintained on the basis of one of auxiliary requests 1 to 6 filed with the letter dated 1 August 2017. It further requested that documents E29 to E31, the arguments related to these documents submitted on 14 November 2019, and the inventive-step attack based on documents E2 and E5 as the closest prior art, presented for the first time with the letter dated 14 November 2019, not be admitted.

1. Issues of admittance

1.1 Appellant-opponent 1 submitted documents E29 to E31 on 14 November 2019, i.e. two weeks before the oral proceedings. E29 and E30 are articles discussing the use of the confidence intervals as tools for the statistical analysis of experimental data. E31 is a document disclosing the "Critical values of the Student's t distribution".

On the basis of the teaching of these documents, appellant-opponent 1 has reworked the experiments contained in the patent-proprietor's letter of 22 June 2017. The result of this reworking is represented graphically in two figures contained in appellant-opponent 1's letter of 14 November 2019. The purpose of this reworking of the respondent's data is to demonstrate that they are not statistically significant.

1.2 E29 and E30 indicate that the confidence intervals are known tools for statistical analysis. Despite this, the Board considers that statistical analysis is a complex matter and that the respondent would need adequate time to get acquainted with the new submissions of appellant-opponent 1 and to check the validity of the data contained in appellant-opponent 1's letter of 14 November 2019. Given the advanced state of the proceedings and the complexity of the new submissions, the Board, in the exercise of its discretion, decides not to admit into the appeal proceedings documents E29 to E31 and the arguments relating to these documents submitted on 14 November 2019 (Article 13(1),(3) RPBA 2007).

1.3 Appellant-opponent 1's letter of 14 November 2019 also contains a new attack on inventive step based on E2 or E5 as the closest prior art. E2 and E5 belong to the same patent family.

In its statement setting out the grounds of appeal, appellant-opponent 1 argued on inventive step starting from E3 as the closest prior art. The same approach was followed by the opposition division in its decision. E2 and E5 had never been proposed previously as possible starting points for the assessment of inventive step. Document E8, considered by appellant-opponent 1 in combination with E2 or E5, had never been discussed during the appeal proceedings.

1.4 The selection of E2 or E5 as the closest prior art results in a substantial change of appellant-opponent 1's case. Whereas the distinguishing feature over E3 lies in the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive, the difference over E2 and E5 lies in the presence of a keto acid as a penetration enhancer. It follows that the experimental data submitted by the respondent to show the effects arising from the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer lose their relevance when E2 or E5 are chosen as the closest prior art. This may possibly result in a different definition of the technical problem.

In the Board's view, the respondent cannot reasonably be expected to deal with the new attack on inventive step in the short time available before the oral proceedings. Thus, the new attack on inventive step starting from E2 or E5 as the closest prior art is not admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(1),(3) RPBA 2007) .

Main request (patent as granted)

2. Sufficiency of disclosure

2.1 The objections of insufficiency of disclosure of the appellants are primarily focused on the feature of claim 1 concerning the ratio between the crosslinked acrylic polymer and the non-crosslinked acrylic polymer. They essentially argue that the sentence "it is preferred that the crosslinkable acrylic polymer is crosslinked completely" (paragraph [0028] of the patent - emphasis added) indicates that the crosslinking reaction may not be complete. In such cases, the ratio of claim 1 would not be equivalent to the ratio of the starting materials (i.e. the crosslinkable acrylic polymer and the non-crosslinkable acrylic polymer) as indicated in paragraph [0028]. The skilled person would therefore have had no guidance in the patent on how to determine the ratio of claim 1 in these situations.

2.2 The entire paragraph [0028] reads as follows:

"The adhesive component is formed from an adhesive composition comprising a non crosslinkable and a crosslinkable acrylic polymer, in which the crosslinkable acrylic copolymer is crosslinked by a process as described further below. In the methods for preparing the adhesive layer of the TTS according to the subject invention, it is preferred that the crosslinkable acrylic polymer is crosslinked completely. Consequently, the above mentioned ratio of crosslinked : non-crosslinked acrylic polymer present in the adhesive component formed upon crosslinking is regarded in the present invention as being equal with the ratio of the crosslinkable : non-crosslinkable acrylic polymer before crosslinking."

The final passage of this paragraph, starting from the word "Consequently", explains how to determine the ratio recited in claim 1, namely, by calculating the ratio of the starting materials, i.e. the ratio of crosslinkable : non-crosslinkable acrylic polymer.

This instruction on how to determine the ratio of claim 1 is independent of the outcome of the crosslinking process, i.e. it applies also in a (hypothetical) case of an incomplete crosslinking reaction. In other words, the sentence "the above mentioned ratio of crosslinked : non-crosslinked ... is regarded in the present invention as being equal with the ratio of the crosslinkable : non-crosslinkable" (emphasis added) indicates that "by definition" the ratio of claim 1 is identical to the ratio of the starting materials.

Thus, contrary to the appellants' argument, the description of the patent does provide instruction on how to determine the ratio between the crosslinked acrylic polymer and the non-crosslinked acrylic polymer. This instruction applies also when some amount of crosslinkable acrylic polymer is still present in the adhesive because the crosslinking reaction was not 100% effective.

2.3 It is in any case clear from the whole teaching of the patent that the amount of crosslinkable polymer not crosslinked during the crosslinking process, if any, is negligible. Indeed, the specification of the patent does not make any mention of compositions comprising non-crosslinked crosslinkable polymers, i.e. compositions in which the crosslinking reaction is incomplete. Quite the opposite, paragraph [0050] explains how the process is to be carried to ensure the completeness of the crosslinking reaction, and paragraph [0097] states that "[i]n the method of producing a transdermal therapeutic system according to the subject invention, the coating is dried until the solvent is removed completely and therefore the crosslinking reaction is complete, i.e. the crosslinked acrylic polymer forms the crosslinked acrylic polymer" (emphasis added).

Thus, having regard to the general teaching of the description, the Board considers that the sentence "it is preferred to have a complete crosslinking" (paragraph [0028] of the patent) does not imply that an objective of the invention is to provide a TTS in which substantial amounts of non-crosslinked crosslinkable polymers are present, i.e. only a partial crosslinking occurred.

2.4 The appellants also argued that the skilled person would not have been able to reproduce the clinical study disclosed in paragraphs [0116] to [0118] of the patent because some information had been omitted such as the size of the patch used and the number of persons involved in the study. Accordingly, in their opinion, there was no guidance on how to achieve the effect of increasing the blood plasma levels of buprenorphine.

In this regard, the Board notes that independent claims 1 and 13 of the patent relate respectively to a TTS and a method for producing a TTS. The relevant question to answer in assessing the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure is whether the skilled person would have been able to carry out the invention defined in the claims. The Board sees no reason to doubt that this indeed would have been the case since the description illustrates the preparation of TTSs according to claim 1 (examples 1 to 3) and provides details on how to perform the process of claim 13 (section "Manufacture").

The clinical study disclosed in the patent demonstrates the effectiveness of the TTS of claim 1 in providing an adequate plasma level of buprenorphine. Whether the skilled person would have been able to reproduce this study does not, in this case, affect the assessment of the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure since achieving a certain plasma level of buprenorphine is not a feature of the claims. In other words, the invention defined in the claims, in respect of which the assessment of the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure is to be made, does not require that a minimum plasma level of buprenorphine is obtained.

2.5 As to the objection that claim 13 was not sufficiently disclosed due to the absence of an essential feature (crosslinking agent), the Board agrees with the opposition division (point 3 of the decision) that this issue concerns the assessment of the requirement of support of the description (Article 84 EPC). As discussed in point 2.4 above, the description provides information on how to perform the invention of claim 13.

2.6 Therefore, the Board concludes that the patent meets the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure.

3. Novelty

3.1 In its statement setting out the grounds of appeal, appellant-opponent 3 argued that the term "preferably" in claim 1 ("..., which preferably forms an amorphous mass,...") referred to all the features that followed this term in part 2) ii. of the claim. These features were therefore to be considered optional features of claim 1. On the basis of this reading of the claim, examples 1 of documents E3 and E4 were considered novelty-destroying since they disclosed a TTS comprising a layer containing buprenorphine, a polyacrylate polymer and a keto acid.

3.2 In its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, the Board disagreed with the interpretation of claim 1 proposed by appellant-opponent 3 arguing that the presence of the two commas in the sentence "..., which preferably forms an amorphous mass,..." indicated that only the "amorphous mass" was an optional feature. It further considered that this interpretation was in line with paragraphs [0017] and [0018] of the description.

3.3 Since during the oral proceedings the appellant-opponents did not make any further submission with regard to the issue of novelty, the Board sees no reason to deviate from the opinion expressed in its communication. Accordingly, the features of part 2) ii. of claim 1 requiring the presence in the adhesive layer of a crosslinked acrylic polymer and a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in a certain ratio, do limit the scope of the claim. It follows that the attack of lack of novelty in view of E3 and E4 based on the assumption that these features are not limiting features of claim 1 must fail.

4. Inventive step

4.1 The patent addresses the problem of providing a TTS for the administration of buprenorphine that results in high plasma levels of the drug (see [0007]).

4.2 Closest prior art

4.2.1 It is not disputed by the parties that document E3 represents the closest prior art.

Example 1 of E3 discloses a buprenorphine transdermal patch in which the adhesive layer contains a crosslinked acrylic polymer. The TTS defined in claim 1 of the patent in suit differs from this patch in the additional presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive.

4.3 Technical problem

4.3.1 The technical problem is to be formulated on the basis of the technical effects due to the distinguishing feature. In this regard, the most relevant data are those disclosed in example 1 (and Figure 1) of the patent and in the experimental report submitted on 22 June 2017.

Example 1 of the patent describes an in vivo study for the evaluation of the buprenorphine blood plasma concentration following the application of a TTS according to claim 1 or the application of comparative TTSs coated with reference compositions 1 or 2. In the experimental report submitted on 22 June 2017, which relates to the same in vivo study, it is explained that 12 subject were involved in the trial.

The TTS according to claim 1 differs from the TTS coated with reference compositions 1 only in that the adhesive contains a mixture of crosslinked and non-crosslinked acrylic polymers whilst reference composition 1 only contains a crosslinked acrylic polymer. The TTS coated with reference compositions 2 contains a different adhesive and a different penetration enhancer compared with the TTS of claim 1. Thus, the data concerning this TTS are not relevant in the context of the present decision since it does not reflect the teaching of the closest prior art.

The buprenorphine blood plasma concentrations are plotted in Figure 1 of the patent as a function of the time. The experimental report of 22 June 2017 contains the same Figure 1 as included in the patent with the additional information of the error bars for each measurement.

4.3.2 The figure shows that the TTS of the patent in suit provides a higher plasma concentration than the TTS coated with reference composition 1. In particular, the interval of 50h to 160h comprises 11 measurement points in which the mean buprenorphine plasma concentration provided by the TTS of the invention is always higher than the mean concentration provided by the reference TTS. The difference is more marked in the central region of the graph (from ca. 70h to ca. 130h) where it is present also when the error bars are considered (Figure 1 of the report of 22 June 2017).

4.3.3 The experimental report of 22 June 2017 additionally includes data relating to in vitro buprenorphine skin permeation measurements. The results reported in table 2 show for two TTSs according to the patent a flux of 2.25 ± 0.07 myg/(cm**(2)h) and 2.33 ± 0.05 and myg/(cm**(2)h) respectively. A comparative TTS, coated with a composition in which the adhesive does not contain a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer provides a flux of 1.90 ± 0.05 and myg/(cm**(2)h).

4.3.4 The appellant-opponents dispute the relevance of the experimental evidence filed by the respondent with the argument that the results are not statistically significant. They criticise the fact the that respondent did not perform a valid statistical analysis of the experimental data, for instance, by determining the 95% confidence interval using a t-test. In their view, the standard error of the mean (SEM) used by the respondent was not sufficient to establish a statistically significant improvement.

4.3.5 In relation to this argument of the appellant-opponents, the Board observes that a party filing experimental data is not under the obligation to perform any specific statistical analysis of these data. The appellant-opponents referred to the 95% confidence interval as a standard tool for statistical analysis in the pharmaceutical field. The Board does not dispute that this may be the case in certain contexts. It is not, however, a requirement in procedures before the EPO.

In establishing whether a certain technical effect alleged by a party has been achieved, the EPO has to apply the general principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In inter partes proceedings, presenting experimental data in support of a position is an option available to both the patent-proprietor and the opponent(s). Typically, experimental data are filed to demonstrate (or deny) the existence of a technical effect that may become relevant in the definition of the technical problem. The deciding body of the EPO has to draw its conclusions on the basis of all the evidence available before it in the light of its conviction. The principle of free evaluation would be contradicted by laying down firm rules of evidence defining the extent to which certain types of evidence were, or were not, convincing (G 3/97 OJ EPO 1999, 245, Reasons No. 5).

4.3.6 In the present case, the sole experiments before the Board are those filed by the respondent. The following observations can be made in respect of this experimental evidence.

(a) The experiments comprise comparative data that make it possible to assess the effects arising from the distinguishing feature, namely, the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive (see points 4.3.1 and 4.3.3 above).

(b) There is no indication of errors of inaccuracies occurring during the experiments. Determining the blood plasma concentration of an active ingredient following the application of a patch to the skin of human subjects is a common test for assessing the effectiveness of a patch. A test of this kind is disclosed for instance in example 1 of E3. Similar considerations apply in respect of the in vitro tests carried out using human skin (see [0119]) of the patent. E2 discloses in example I similar in vitro tests carried out with mice skin. The Board sees therefore no reason to question the soundness of the experiments.

(c) Concerning the in vivo experiments, Figure 2 of the report of 22 June 2017 shows that when the error bars are considered, there is some overlap between the curves representing the buprenorphine plasma concentrations provided by the TTS of claim 1 and by the TTS coated with reference composition 1. However, as explained in paragraph in point 4.3.2 above, in the 11 measurement points of the interval from 50h to 160h, the buprenorphine mean plasma concentration provided by the TTS of the patent is always higher than the mean plasma concentration provided by the reference TTS. Moreover, as discussed above, in the central region of the graph (from ca. 70h to ca. 130h), there is no overlap between the curves also when the error bars are considered.

(d) The in vitro experiments (see point 4.3.3 above) show that the TTS of claim 1 provides better results in terms of buprenorphine flux than a comparative TTS.

On the basis of these considerations, the Board concludes that the experiments filed by the respondent are convincing evidence that the TTS of the patent provides a higher buprenorphine plasma level than the TTS disclosed in E3.

4.3.7 The appellant-opponents also considered that the experimental data submitted by the respondent were not sufficient to show that an effect was present over the whole scope of the claim, in particular having regard to the fact that the boundaries of the claim were not clearly defined due to the presence of an ambiguous parameter, namely, the ratio between the crosslinked acrylic polymer and the non-crosslinked acrylic polymer.

For the reasons set out in points 2.1 to 2.3, the Board does not regard the ratio recited in claim 1 as an ambiguous parameter. Moreover, this ratio does not represent the distinguishing feature of claim 1 over E3. This is rather to be seen in the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive of the TTS according to the patent. The main purpose of comparative experiments is to illustrate the effects brought about by the distinguishing feature(s). As explained above, the evidence filed by the respondent makes it possible to appreciate that the presence of a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive results in an increase of the buprenorphine plasma level.

4.3.8 Therefore, the objective technical problem is the provision of a TTS providing a higher blood plasma level of buprenorphine.

4.4 Obviousness

4.4.1 Documents E2 and E5 disclose TTSs containing a mixture of crosslinked and non-crosslinked acrylic polymer in the adhesive. However, these documents do not indicate that adding a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer to an adhesive containing a crosslinked acrylic polymer results in an increase of the buprenorphine plasma concentration.

E9 teaches that the adhesive properties can be improved by combining a crosslinked and a non-crosslinked acrylic polymer. However, this document does not disclose that this combination results in an increase of the buprenorphine plasma levels.

4.4.2 It follows from the above considerations that the subject-matter of claim 1 meets the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeals are 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