European Patent Office

T 2036/21 (Composition for prodromal patients/NUTRITIA) of 24.10.2023

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T203621.20231024
Date of decision
24 October 2023
Case number
T 2036/21
Petition for review of
-
Application number
08766831.5
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
No distribution (D)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
FOOD COMPOSITION FOR PRODROMAL DEMENTIA PATIENTS
Applicant name
N.V. Nutricia
Opponent name
Fresenius Kabi Deutschland GmbH
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
Board
3.3.09
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 111(2)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(6)
Keywords
Late-filed document - admitted (yes)
Auxiliary requst 4: inventive step - (yes)
Convincing evidence that the claimed therapeutic effect is achieved - (yes)
Application of the principle of free evaluation of the evidence - (yes)
Binding effect of earlier decision of the Board when the facts are not the same - (no)
Catchword
According to established case law, the principle of the free evaluation of evidence applies universally in proceedings before the EPO when assessing any means of evidence. There is no reason for diverging from this principle when deciding whether a compound or composition induces a therapeutic effect. The EPO deciding body decides on this issue in the light of its conviction, taking into account the evidence available in the proceedings and on the footing that one set of facts is more likely to be true than the other.
This approach does not correspond to that applied in other contexts, where conclusions are only drawn if there is a high grade of statistical confidence. In proceedings before the EPO it is not a prerequisite to perform a statistical analysis of the results and to determine a specific confidence interval, as it is most often required in biomedical research and by health authorities granting marketing authorisations for medicinal products.
(See reasons, points No. 3.25 to 3.29)
Citing cases
T 1863/21T 0636/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.