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 0824/94 (LAV/INSTITUT PASTEUR) 18-11-1999
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0824/94 (LAV/INSTITUT PASTEUR) 18-11-1999

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T082494.19991118
Date of decision
18 November 1999
Case number
T 0824/94
Petition for review of
-
Application number
85401799.3
IPC class
C12N 15/49
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 1.08 MB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Cloned DNA sequences, hybridizable with genomic RNA of lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV)

Applicant name
Institut Pasteur, et al
Opponent name
Chiron Corporation
Board
3.3.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
European Patent Convention Art 83 1973
European Patent Convention Art 87 1973
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Keywords

Main request - added subject-matter (yes)

Auxiliary request - added subject-matter (no)

Insufficiency of disclosure (no)

Novelty (yes)

Inventive step (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0626/91
Citing decisions
T 0188/97
T 0351/98

I. European patent No. 0 178 978 (application No. 85 401 799.3) claiming priority of 19 September 1984 (GB 8423659), was filed on 17 September 1985 with the following claims inter alia:

"1. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA which is hybridizable with the genomic RNA of the LAV viruses or a fragment of said hybridizable DNA."

"2. The DNA of claim 1 which is a recombinant of said hybridizable DNA or DNA fragment hybridizable with the genomic RNA of the LAV virus."

"3. The DNA of claim 1 or 2 wherein said hybridizable DNA or DNA fragment is a cDNA."

In the description as filed at page 1, lines 28 to 35, it was stated that the term LAV viruses was used also to cover HTLV-III and ARV.

II. During examination there was cited under Article 54(3) EPC:

document (1): EP-A-0 173 529

applied for 19 August 1985 claiming priority from 22. August 1984 and designating the same Contracting States as the patent in suit. Document (1) and its priority document referred to a H9/HTLV-III producing cell line, and three cDNA clones of HTLV-III all deposited before the priority date of the patent in suit, and a method defined in its claim 5 as:

"A process for the molecular cloning and expression of cDNA sequence of HTLV-III consisting essentially of

isolating total cellular mRNA from H9/HTLV-III cells;

forming double-stranded cDNA from said mRNA and inserting said double-stranded cDNA into a phage lambda to form a recombinant DNA molecule;

hybridizing said recombinant DNA molecule with a radio- labelled probe;

removing cDNA from said molecules and inserting said cDNA into a suitable plasmid; and

transfecting said plasmids into a suitable host cell capable of expressing HTLV-III DNA sequence."

III. The patent in suit was granted on the basis of 24 claims. Claims 1, 3, 8 and 10 to 13 as granted read as follows:

"1. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome contained in J19 (CNCM I-338)"

"3. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA which consists:

- either of the 3' terminal fragment of the DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome and which has up to 2.5. kb which contains the following restriction sites in the respective orders which follow (from the 3' end to the 5' end):

1) either HindIII, SacI, BglII,

2) or HindIII, SacI, BglII, BglII, KpnI

3) or HindIII, SacI, BglII, BglII, KpnI, XhoI, BamHI, HindIII, BglII,

- or of a corresponding cloned 3' terminal DNA fragment corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome which hybridizes with the preceding one under stringent conditions comprising performing the hybridization on a filter at 68 C in 1 x Denhardt solution, 0.5% SDS, 2 x SSC, 2mM EDTA, probe: 32P nick-translated LAV insert of pLAV 13 at > 108 cpm/µg and washing the filter 2x30 minutes in 0-1 SSC, 0.1 % SDS at 68 C."

"8. The DNA of claims 1 or 2, wherein said DNA contains the following series of restriction sites:

Hind III 0

Sac I 50

Bam HI 460

Hind III 520

Bam HI 600

Pst I 800

Hind III 1100

Bgl II 1500

Kpn I 3500

Kpn I 3900

Eco RI 4100

Eco RI 5300

Sal I 5500

Kpn I 6100

Bgl II 6500

Bgl II 7600

Hind III 7850

Bam HI 8150

Xho I 8600

Kpn I 8700

Bgl II 8750

Bgl II 9150

Sac I 9200

Hind III 9250."

"10. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of claim 8 which extends from approximately Kpn I (6100) to approximately Bam HI (8150) thereof or a DNA fragment of the same length which hybridizes with the first one under stringent conditions comprising performing the hybridization on a filter at 68 C in 1 x Denhardt solution, 0.5 % SDS, 2 x SSC, 2mM EDTA, probe: 32P nick-translated LAV insert of pLAV 13 at > 108 cpm/µg and washing the filter 2 x 30 minutes in 0-1 SSC, 0.1 % SDS at 68 C."

"11. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of claim 8 which extends from approximately Kpn I (3500) to approximately Bgl II (6500) thereof or a DNA fragment of the same length which hybridizes with the first one under stringent conditions comprising performing the hybridization on a filter at 68 C in 1 x Denhardt solution, 0.5 % SDS, 2 x SSC, 2mM EDTA, probe: 32P nick-translated LAV insert of pLAV 13 at > 108 cpm/µg and washing the filter 2 x 30 minutes in 0-1 SSC, 0.1% SDS at 68 C."

"12. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of claim 8 which extends from approximately Pst I (800) to approximately Kpn I (3500) thereof or a DNA fragment of the same length which hybridizes with the first one under stringent conditions comprising performing the hybridization on a filter at 68 C in 1 x Denhardt solution, 0.5 % SDS, 2 x SSC, 2mM EDTA, probe: 32P nick-translated LAV insert of pLAV 13 at > 108 cpm/µg and washing the filter 2 x 30 minutes in 0-1 SSC, 0.1 % SDS at 68 C."

"13. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of claim 8 which extends from approximately Bgl II (6500) to approximately Bgl II (9150) thereof or a DNA fragment of the same length which hybridizes with the first one under stringent conditions comprising performing the hybridization on a filter at 68 C in 1 x Denhardt solution, 0.5 % SDS, 2 x SSC, 2mM EDTA, probe: 32P nick-translated LAV insert of pLAV 13 at > 108 cpm/µg and washing the filter 2 x 30 minutes in 0-1 SSC, 0.1% SDS at 68 C."

IV. Notice of opposition was filed by the appellant (opponent). Revocation of the patent in its entirety was requested on the grounds of Articles 100(a), 100(b) and 100(c) EPC, i.e. lack of novelty (Article 54 EPC), lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC), insufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC).

V. By its decision given orally on 22 July 1994 and issued in writing on 9 August 1994, the opposition division maintained the patent on the basis of claims 1 to 21 filed during the oral proceedings.

VI. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal against this decision and a Statement of Grounds of Appeal. The respondent (proprietor of the patent in suit) filed counterarguments. The following documents are referred to in the present decision in addition to document (1):

(A1) Wain-Hobson S. et al., Cell, Vol. 40, pages 9 to 17. (1985)

(3) Declaration of Dr M.S. Urdea on behalf of the appellant dated 11 May 1991

(5) Ratner L. et al., Nature, Vol 313, pages 277 to 284 (January 1985)

(7) Sanchez-Pescador R. et al. in Aids (papers from Science 1982-1985), pages 410 to 428 (February 1985)

(14) Shaw G.M. et al., Science, Vol. 226, pages 1165 to 1171 (7 December 1984)

(16)-(23) Documents pertaining to the re-deposit of J19

VII. On 24 February 1999, the board issued a communication pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, expressing its provisional opinion.

VIII. Oral proceedings were held on 12 May 1999, during which the respondent submitted a new main request and an auxiliary request, replacing all previously filed requests. After deliberation by the board, the Chairwoman announced that the debate was closed and that the decision would be issued in writing on due course.

IX. Claims 1 and 3 to 6 of the new main request read as follows (amendments over granted claim 1 are shown in bold):

"1. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome contained in J19 (CNCM I-338), said cloned DNA including LTR elements U3, R and U5 of said retroviral genome."

"3. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA which consists:

- either of a 3' terminal fragment of the DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) including the R and U3 regions of the 3' LTR, and which has up to 2.5 kb which contains the following restriction sites in the respective orders which follow (from the 3' end to the 5' end):

1) either Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II,

2) or Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I,

3) or Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II,

- or a corresponding fragment which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a cloned 3' terminal fragment of up to 2.5 kb of the cloned DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) which includes the sites Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II, and which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I."

"4. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately Kpn I (6100) to approximately Bam HI (8150) thereof

- or a corresponding fragment which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a cloned 3' terminal fragment of up to 2.5 kb of the cloned DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) which includes the sites Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II, and which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I."

"5. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately Kpn I (3500) to approximately Bgl II (6500) thereof or a corresponding DNA fragment which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a corresponding fragment of J19 which extends from approximately Kpn I (3500) to approximately Bgl (6500)."

"6. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately Pst I (800) to approximately Kpn I (3500) thereof or a corresponding DNA fragment which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a corresponding fragment of J19 which extends from approximately PstI (800) to approximately KpnI (3500)."

X. Claims 1 and 3 to 6 of the auxiliary request read as follows (amendments over granted claim 1 are shown in bold):

"1. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome contained in J19 (CNCM I-338), said cloned DNA including LTR elements U3, R and U5 of said retroviral genome."

"3. A cloned DNA which contains a DNA which consists:

- either of the 3' terminal fragment of the DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) including the R and U3 regions of the 3' LTR, and which has up to 2.5 kb which contains the following restriction sites in the respective orders which follow (from the 3' end to the 5' end):

1) either Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II,

2) or Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I,

3) or Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II."

"4. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately Kpn I (6100) to approximately Bam HI (8150) thereof."

"5. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately Kpn I (3500) to approximately Bgl II (6500) thereof."

"6. A cloned DNA fragment whose sequence corresponds to the part of the DNA of J19 which extends from approximately PstI (800) to approximately Kpn I (3500) thereof."

XI. The appellant submitted in writing and at the oral proceedings inter alia the following arguments still relevant to the requests finally put forward on appeal:

Article 84 EPC

- The wording "corresponding to" rendered claim 1 of both requests unclear.

- The amendments to claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the main request made these claims unclear.

Article 123(2) EPC

- The hybridization conditions referred to in claims 3 to 6 of the main request found no support in the application as filed. There was also no basis in the application as filed for the disclaimer "which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I" in these claims.

Article 123(3) EPC

- The scope of claims of 3 and 4 of the main request had been broadened. In the corresponding claims 3 and 10 as granted, the probe of reference was the pLAV 13 insert, whereas in claims 3 and 4 of the main request, the length of the probe of reference had been changed. However, the length of the reference DNA was a critical factor for defining the scope of a claim to DNAs capable of hybridizing to a DNA probe.

Article 83 EPC

- In the absence of a correct identification of the LTR elements U3, R and U5 (Figure 2 of the patent in suit was an imprecise sketch) and guidance as to what concentrations of the hybridization reagents to use, the skilled person was prevented from knowing whether (s)he was in possession of a DNA of claim 1. This uncertainty led to an insufficiency under Article 83 EPC on the reasoning given eg. in decision T 626/91 of 5. April 1995.

- It was impossible to reproduce the invention because sequence of the clone identified as J19 in the priority document (Figures 1 and 2) was not the same as the clone referred to as J19 in the European patent application (Figures 3 and 4 to 11), since a series of restriction sites present in Figure 2 of the priority document were missing in Figures 3 and 4 to 11 of the patent specification (eg no Bam HI restriction sites at 460 and 600 nor a Bgl II restriction site around 9150 could be found in Figures 3 and 4 to 11 of the patent specification). It had been admitted by the respondent that in the sequenced clone of Figures 3 and 4 to 11 of the patent specification the Bgl II restriction site at 9150 was not there. This restriction site was however in the originally deposited J19 claimed in claim 1, and an essential feature of the cloned DNA of claim 3, so certainly the subject-matter of these claims was not enabled by the deposited clone.

- Claims 5 and 6 of the auxiliary request related to restriction fragments cut from the Kpn I site around nucleotide 3500. However, the restriction site Kpn I (GGTACC) was not to be found in Figures 4 to 11 of the patent in suit, which was thus not enabling for these fragments.

Article 87 EPC

- For the same reasons the clone identified as J19 in the priority document was not the same as the clone referred to in the European patent application as filed, the latter could not validly claim the priority date of 19 September 1984.

- Any particular clone termed J19 was not a static entity but was subject to variation or drift. Therefore this could have jeopardized the validity of a re-deposit according to Rule 28a EPC since it was not sure that the re-deposited J19 (see documents (16)-(23)) was the same as the one used for generating Figure 2 of the priority document, Figure 3 or Figures 4 to 11 of the patent in suit.

Novelty

- As a consequence of the finding under Article 87 EPC, the relevant date for evaluating the novelty of the claims was the European filing date of 17. September 1985. The claims lacked novelty over intermediate documents (A1), (5) and (7) published before that date.

- The skilled person was unable to locate the "LTR elements", the only feature which conferred novelty on claim 1 over document (1). But an undefined feature could not make a claim novel.

- Claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 as amended were not novel over document (1).

Inventive step

- In view of the failure to comply with the requirements of Article 87 EPC, the subject-matter of the claims was obvious in view of intermediate documents (A1), (5) and (7).

XII. In support of his requests, the respondent submitted in writing and at the oral proceedings the following arguments:

Article 84 EPC

- Lack of clarity was not a ground of opposition.

- For the purpose of questioning the novelty, the scope of claim 1 was clear to the appellant, despite of the word "corresponding to".

Article 123(2) EPC

- The basis in the application as filed for the disclaimer "which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I" in claims in claims 3 to 6 of the main request was to be found on page 3, lines 30 to 33.

Article 123(3) EPC

- There had been no broadening of the scope of claims 3 and 4 over the corresponding granted claims.

Article 83 EPC

- The patent in suit provided all the necessary information as to how a cDNA and its restriction fragments could be obtained from the deposited virus.

Article 87 EPC

- Sequencing was done somewhat later on "descendants" of the deposited clone J19, which could have undergone some minor polymorphic changes. These point mutations were of no significance for the purpose of defining the invention since a mutant virus was not a new virus and its genome was hybridizable with the deposited one. Further, restriction enzymes might not have been pure at that time; but also this deficiency was not relevant.

Novelty

- For the purpose of evaluating the novelty, exact localization of the "LTR elements" was not relevant. The skilled person had rather to know that they were there.

XIII. The appellant (opponent) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent No. 0 178 978 be revoked.

The respondent (patentee) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the new main request or on the basis of the auxiliary request, both submitted at oral proceedings on 12 May 1999.

1. The appeal is admissible

2. For ease of understanding the critical issues to be considered in this case, it seems worth remarking, before considering in detail the claims put forward on appeal, that the problems which have arisen on this patent at the application stage, the opposition stage and now on appeal all are due to the existence of document (1), a European application for a very similar invention having a priority one month earlier than that of the patent in suit. Document (1) can thus only be considered as prior art for the purposes of novelty under Article 54(3) EPC, but cannot be taken into account when considering inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Any amendments made to establish novelty of the claims over document (1) must in accordance with the established case law of the boards of appeal be clearly and unambiguously based on the text of the application as filed, the strict standard applied by the boards when considering the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. The standard applied is the same as that established by the boards of appeal when considering whether a prior art document clearly and unambiguously discloses something that destroys the novelty of a claim. Only by applying the same standard in each case can a result adequate to both the earlier and the later applicant be achieved. The later applicant is not allowed to amend his claims to cover possible embodiments that the later applicant alleges would obviously also be understood by the skilled person from the original application, if such embodiments are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed. If such a more generous approach to Article 123(2) EPC were applied, it would require the novelty-destroying content of an earlier application to be interpreted, contrary to the present practice of the boards of appeal, to cover obvious modifications which the skilled person could derive for himself from the earlier application. The result of such a changed approach would be undesirable uncertainty, possibly leading to double protection in the case where both patents remain in force.

Main request

Article 84 EPC

Claim 1

3. The appellant has objected that the word "corresponding" in claim 1 renders the scope of the claim unclear. This word was not introduced by an amendment after grant, so prima facie, no objection appears to be open under this Article on appeal. But even if it were, in the context of both claim 1 and the description, usage of this word appears to be in the narrow sense of base to base correspondence, subject to the allowable variations which would not substantially alter their capability of also hybridizing with the LAV retroviral genomes, as understood by a person skilled in the art. These allowable variations are spelled out for DNA fragments in the passage appearing at page 6, lines 2 to 6, of the application as filed (page 5, lines 15 to 20): "It is of course to be understood that fragments which would include some deletions or mutations which would not substantially alter their capability of also hybridizing with the LAV retroviral genomes are to be considered as forming obvious equivalents of the DNA fragments more specifically referred to..". This passage no longer appears in the patent as granted, but variations on these lines must reasonably still be considered as included in the claim.

Claim 3

4. The second half of this claim has been substantially amended compared to the granted claim 3 from which it is derived. The amended wording is open to two interpretations, the first being:

"or a corresponding fragment which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a cloned 3' terminal fragment of up to 2.5 kb of the cloned DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338) which includes the sites Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II, and which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I." Here the cloned 3' terminal fragment is defined by the presence or absence of certain restriction sites. The second interpretation is (reference numerals added in square brackets by the board):

"or a corresponding fragment

[1] which hybridizes under stringent hybridization and washing conditions with a cloned 3' terminal fragment of up to 2.5 kb of the cloned DNA contained in J19 (CNCM I-338)

[2] which includes the sites Hind III, Sac I, Bgl II, Bgl II, Kpn I, Xho I, Bam HI, Hind III, Bgl II,

[3] and which is free of the following restriction sites Eco RI, Nru I, Pvu I, Sal I, Sma I, Sph I, Stu I and XBa I."

Here it is the "corresponding fragment" which is defined by hybridization and washing conditions and by the presence or absence of certain restriction sites. The first interpretation seems the more likely. Further the word "corresponding" has lost the referent it had in granted claim 3 reading "...corresponding 3' terminal fragment corresponding to a LAV retroviral genome which hybridizes with the preceding one".

Claim 4

5. This claim is derived from claim 10 as granted. Similar comments apply to the second half of the claim beginning with "... or corresponding fragment..." as for claim 3.

Claims 5 and 6

6. These are derived from claims 10 and 11 as granted. Their second halves have been amended in like manner, there now being introduced into each a reference to "a corresponding fragment" without clear indication of what is referred to.

7. However, in view of the conclusions reached as to the requirements of Article 123 EPC below, it is unnecessary for the board to decide whether the uncertainties introduced into the amended claims are such that the main request must already be rejected for failing to satisfy Article 84 EPC.

Article 123(2) EPC

8. The second parts of each of Claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 relate to fragments which hybridize with a fragment of J19. However, in the application as filed there are mentioned only "DNA fragments hybridizable with the RNA of LAV (see page 2, lines 28 to 29 and page 5, line 28), "fragments having the capability of hybridizing with the LAV retroviral genome" (see page 5, last line to page 6 line 7), and claims 1 and 2 as filed (see Section I supra)). There is no mention of selection of fragments hybridizable with pLAV 13. The reference on page 11, first full paragraph to fragments of J19 and J81 detected and respectively not detected by pLAV 13 is to identify where restriction sites are, and not in connection with the selection of a particular subset of cloned DNA for the purpose of the invention. It may be that the skilled person might derive such a subset for him- or herself, but there is here no clear and unambiguous disclosure of this for the purposes of Article 123(2) EPC. There is also no expressis verbis mention of fragments hybridizable with the restriction fragments Kpn I (6100) to approximately BamH I (8150) (claim 4), Kpn I (3500) to approximately Bgl II (6500) (claim 5) and from approximately Pst I (800) to approximately Kpn I (3500) (claim 6) in the application as filed. These fragments also cannot be implicitly derived therefrom because it is not sufficient that these sub-classes of "hybridizable fragments" referred to in claims 4 to 6 belong conceptually to the broader class of "fragments having the capability of hybridizing with the LAV retroviral genome", if there is no pointer in the application as filed to these individual sub-classes of "hybridizable fragments". The subject-matter of claims 3 to 6 thus does not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Article 123(3)

Claim 3

9. Claim 3, second half, as granted referred to a "..corresponding 3' terminal DNA fragment corresponding to a LAV retroviral genome" and to hybridization under stringent conditions including washing the filter in 0-1 SSC. In claim 3 of the main request the reference to "3' terminal" has been omitted, as has been the reference to washing in 0-1 SSC. Both changes appear to widen the range of fragments which would meet the conditions of the claim, and the change is thus contrary to Article 123(3). While the omission of 0-1 SSC avoids the dispute between the parties as to the meaning of this feature, it being accepted by the respondent that this was probably an error for 0.1 SSC, because of the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC, simple deletion of a feature normally is not an acceptable way of putting the matter right.

Claim 4

10. Claim 4 derives from claim 10 as granted. The second half of granted claim 10 referred to a DNA of the same length as that claimed in the first half of the claim. The amended claim 4 now put forward omits this reference to the length of the fragment in the second half, and as in claim 3 discussed above omits the feature of washing in 0-1 SSC. The claim thus fails to comply with Article 123(3) EPC.

Claims 5 and 6

11. These derive from granted claims 11 and 12. In each case the same objectionable changes have been made as discussed in the immediately above paragraph in relation to claim 4. These claims thus also fail to comply with Article 123(3) EPC.

Claims 7 to 10

12. As these claims refer back to claims 3 to 6 inter alia, their scope has also been extended in way that contravenes Article 123(3) EPC.

Article 54 EPC - Novelty

13. The question of the novelty of the claim 1, and the first half of claims 3, 4, 5, and 6 will be discussed in connection with the auxiliary request.

14. Here it needs merely be briefly remarked that the second halves of claims 3, 4, 5 and 6 relating to sets of fragments that are hybridizable with other fragments, now omit any identifiable characteristics which would serve to distinguish the claimed fragments from the disclosure of document (1).

Article 113 EPC

15. The main request was put forward at a late stage of the oral proceedings. The appellants confined themselves to remarking that the claims were open to every objection possible, on the existing evidence. By putting forward the request at that late stage, the respondent deprived himself of the opportunity of preliminary reasoned comments by the board, but as objections had been raised by the appellant to the previous claims under all of Articles 84, 123(2), 123(3) and 54 EPC, the respondent was aware of the grounds and evidence on which the patent was being objected to and had the opportunity demanded by Article 113 EPC to try and meet these.

16. The board concludes that the main request must be refused.

Auxiliary request

Article 84 EPC

Claim 1

17. The claim has been amended since grant, but not as respects the passage where the word "corresponding to" appears, but, as already explained in point 3 above, the appellant's objection as to the lack of clear meaning of "corresponding to" fails.

18. The appellant has also objected that the additional wording added namely "said cloned DNA including the LTR elements U3, R and U5 of said retroviral genome" have no support in the description and are unclear, because although Figure 2 shows that J19 includes all the LTR elements U3, R and U5 it is also stated (page 10, lines 30-32 as originally filed) that "Only the R/U5 boundary has been defined and other boundaries are only drawn figuratively". However this description provides sufficient support for the added wording, as while there may be doubt where the precise boundaries of all the elements are, the skilled person will certainly understand that they are all to be found in J19 at the position shown in Figure 2. No experimental evidence has been adduced to show that this is not in fact true for the original or re-deposited clone.

Claims 3 to 11

19. No lack of clarity or lack of support has been alleged against any changes introduced into these claims compared to the respective claims as granted, and the board sees no objections under Article 84 EPC to these claims.

Article 123(2) EPC

Claim 1

20. For the reasons already indicated in point 18 above the claim as now amended has a basis in the application as originally filed.

21. The appellant has submitted that the facts that:

(a) the originally deposited clone became non-viable and had to be replaced by the patentee in accordance with the provisions of Rule 28a EPC by a newly deposited clone from biological material maintained by the patentee and

(b) the new deposit differed from the originally deposited clone in some restriction sites

meant that the claims all of which referred directly or indirectly to the original deposit had no basis for the purpose of Article 123(2) EPC.

22. On behalf of the respondent it was stated to the depositary organisation that the re-deposit was the same as the original. There is no evidence, from experiments or otherwise, before the board to show that the re-deposit is a basis not as suitable as the original clone for the matter claimed. The board is not prepared to find that the re-deposit deprives the claims of support, in the absence of evidence substantiating that any feature in claim 1 of the auxiliary request (see Section X supra) was changed in the re-deposit to such an extent that this clone no longer falls under the scope of claim 1.

Claim 3

23. Compared to claim 3 as granted, claim 3 of this request has been amended by deleting the words "corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome" after " J19 (CNMC I-338)", insertion of the words "including the R and U3 regions of the 3'LTR" and deletion of the whole alternative covered by the second half of the claim as granted.

24. As J19 is defined in the description as corresponding to the LAV retroviral genome, the deletion makes no difference to the content and scope of the claim. The inserted words have a basis in the description and claim 8 as originally filed.

25. The deletion of the alternative removes the objections raised by the appellant to the second half of claim 3 as granted.

Claim 4

26. Claim 4 has a basis in claims 1, 11 and 12 as filed (and as appearing in the priority document) and in the general description at pages 3 to 5. These claims did not refer specifically to the DNA sequence of J19 as deposited, but to "a DNA which is hybridizable with the genomic RNA of the LAV viruses", a definition under which J19 as deposited (and re-deposited) falls. The claim as a whole thus has a basis in the application as originally filed.

Claim 5

27. Claim 5 has a basis in claims 1, 11 and 13 as filed (and as appearing in the priority document). These claims did not refer specifically to the sequence of J19 as deposited, but to "a DNA which is hybridizable with the genomic RNA of the LAV viruses", a definition under which J19 as deposited (and re-deposited) falls. The claim as a whole thus has a basis in the application as originally filed.

Claim 6

28. Claim 6 has a basis in claims 1, 11 and 14 as filed (and as appearing in the priority document). These claims did not refer specifically to the sequence of J19 as deposited, but to "a DNA which is hybridizable with the genomic RNA of the LAV viruses", a definition under which J19 as deposited (and re-deposited) falls. The claim as a whole thus has a basis in the application as originally filed.

Claims 7 to 11

29. Claim 7 has a basis in claim 17 originally filed (and claim 17 of the priority document).

30. Claim 8 has a basis in claim 19 originally filed, and is foreshadowed in the passage of the priority document on page 13, lines 11 to 12, reading "The DNA according to the invention can be used also for achieving the expression of LAV viral antigens for diagnostic purposes..".

31. Claims 9 and 10 have a basis in claims 20 to 22 originally filed (being claims 19 to 21 of the priority document).

32. Claim 11 has a basis in claim 24 originally filed (claim 22 of the priority document).

Article 123(3) EPC

33. The scope of claims of the auxiliary request is now in every case either the same as or more limited than that of the corresponding granted claims, so that the claims of this request satisfy the requirement of Article 123(3) EPC.

Article 87 EPC

34. The right to priority is governed by Article 87 EPC, which requires that the European patent application and the priority document relate to the same invention. The appellant maintained that the claims of the auxiliary request could not rely on the claimed priority date because the clone identified as J19 in the priority document (Figures 1 and 2) was not the same as the clone referred to as J19 in the European patent application (Figures 3 and 4 to 11). It was also argued that the re-deposited J19 could also have been different from either of these two J19, and that the description would be positively misleading in relation to the re-deposited clone, the only clone now available to the public.

35. There is a verbal basis for the present claims in the priority document as discussed above in connection with Article 123(2) EPC. For the purpose of Article 87 EPC the present claims can thus be treated as relating to the same invention as the one disclosed in the priority document, and so entitled to the priority date.

Article 83 EPC

36. The fact that the Kpn I (3200) and Bgl II (9100) restriction sites are not to be found in Figures 4 to 11. of the patent in suit does not mean that the latter is not enabling for the fragments of claims 3 to 6 of the auxiliary request since these restriction sites are present in re-deposited J19 (CNCM I-338)(see the restriction map included in document (18)). This map also shows the presence of the restriction sites Bgl II (6500), Pst I (800), Kpn I (6100) and Bam HI (8150). Thus, the re-deposited phage J19 (CNCM I-338) also enables the skilled person to reproduce the restriction fragments of claims 3 to 6 of the auxiliary request. There certainly is no experimental evidence to the contrary before the board.

37. The appellant also argues under Article 83 EPC that the skilled person is not in a position to correctly identify the LTR elements and to establish under which conditions hybridization should occur and hence (s)he is prevented from knowing whether a given DNA falls under the scope of claim 1. There is no evidence before the board to substantiate that any alleged deficiencies on these lines are really such as to prevent the skilled person putting the invention into practice. This is because an exact localization of the "LTR elements" is not relevant, as long as the skilled person can establish that these "LTR elements" are present. This was possible at the priority date of the patent in suit because the LTR elements were present in other known retroviruses such as HLTV-I, HTLV-II and bovine leukemia virus (BLV) (see document (5), passage bridging l-h and r-h column on page 277 and the references cited therein).

38. Also the appellant's line of argument that the skilled person did not know under which hybridization conditions the test had to be performed, is not convincing. This is because Dr Urdea, an appellant's own expert, states that these conditions should be "stringent conditions" (see document (3), point 6). This is in line with page 10, lines 2 to 16 of the application as filed, wherein picking up seven positives on two million phage plaques with no false positive (which should always be avoided) must have of necessity been performed under stringent hybridization conditions.

39. In view of these findings, the board concludes that the claims of this request fulfil the requirements of Article 83 EPC.

Article 54 EPC

Claims 1, 3 and 11

40. The appellant's objections under Article 54 EPC are based on the assumptions (i) that the claims lacked novelty over intermediate documents (A1), (5) and (7) published before the filing date of the European patent application because the latter could not rely on the claimed priority date and (ii) that the skilled person was unable to locate exactly the "LTR elements", the only feature which, in the respondent's view, conferred novelty on claim 1 over document (1). As stated above the board accepts that all the claims are entitled to the priority date, so the line of argumentation (i) for lack of novelty fails.

41. In relation to document (1), the DNA of claims 1 and 3 are novel over the recombinant clone BH10 of document (1), which is an example of a LAV virus DNA, because the latter includes no LTR element U5 and no complete LTR element R. This is stated expressis verbis in later document (14) taken as an expert's opinion (see page 1167, l-h column: "We know from recent analyses that BH-10, BH-5/ BH-8 are incomplete viral clones that lack a short Sst I-Sst I segment of approximately 190 base pairs in the 5' LTR-leader sequence region"). Thus, also objection (ii) above (point 40) is not convincing.

42. Nor does document (1) disclose a purified RNA of LAV virus which has a size from 9.1 to 9.2 kb and which corresponds to the cDNA contained in J19 as deposited or re-deposited. So claim 11 is also novel over document (1).

Claims 4 to 6

43. The novelty of the restriction fragments of claims 4 to 6. of the auxiliary request have not been challenged by the appellant. The board also has to acknowledge the novelty thereof since these restriction fragments are not disclosed by document (1).

Claims 7 to 10

44. Likewise the novelty of claims 7 to 10 which directly or indirectly refer back to the novel DNA of claims 1 to 6 must be acknowledged on the basis that this DNA is novel.

45. No other documents were alleged to be novelty destroying, so the board finds that the novelty of all claims of this request has been established.

Article 56 EPC

46. The appellant's line of argument for invalidity of the patent in suit on the ground of lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC over documents (A1), (5) and (7), published before the filing date of the European patent application but after the priority date, depended on the claims being entitled only to the European filing date. As stated above the board finds the claims entitled to the priority date and so this objection of lack of inventive step over documents (A1), (5) and (7) fails.

47. Bearing in mind that document (1) is a document according to Article 54(3) EPC and so cannot be relied on for the purpose of considering inventive step, no case for lack of inventive step remains to be considered on appeal.

48. In the judgement of the board no grounds exist under the European Patent Convention which preclude the patent being maintained on the basis of the claims of the auxiliary request. The description and drawings can remain as granted.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the auxiliary request as filed in the oral proceedings on 12. May 1999.

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