European Patent Office

Résumé de Article 054(5) EPC pour la décision T1396/23 du 13.11.2025

Données bibliographiques

Chambre de recours
3.3.09
Inter partes/ex parte
Inter partes
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Clé de distribution
Non distribuées (D)
Articles de la CBE
Art 54(5) Art 83
Règles de la CBE
-
RPBA:
-
Autres dispositions légales
-
Autres décision citées
-
Mots-clés
sufficiency of disclosure – medical use – claimed therapeutic effect – substance or composition – essential nutrient
Affaires citées
-
Livre de jurisprudence
II.C.3.1, II.C.4.1, I.C.7.2.7, 11th edition

Résumé

In T 1396/23 the appeal was filed by the opponent against the opposition division's decision rejecting the opposition. The appellant contested the opposition division's finding that the invention defined in claim 1 of the opposed patent was sufficiently disclosed. While the appellant did not dispute that claim 1 related to a medical use and was drafted as per Art. 54(5) EPC, it argued that the effect induced by whey protein micelle complexes (WPM complexes) described in the opposed patent was not therapeutic. According to the appellant, the claimed complexes provided nutrition but were unsuitable to prevent the claimed conditions, even less so to treat them. The board was not persuaded by the arguments of the appellant. The board referred to the opposed patent, which explained that, prior to the filing date, whey protein isolates were considered not only to be essential nutrients but also to be beneficial in reducing the risk of, and treating, metabolic diseases associated with high-fat diets and/or elevated postprandial insulin levels, such as diabetes. On this basis alone, the board found it reasonable to assume that the claimed WPM complexes, which contained whey proteins, could likewise induce these effects. The board observed that the opposed patent taught that using the claimed WPM complexes rather than conventional whey proteins was beneficial for subjects who were at risk of or suffered from the diseases indicated in claim 1. The board explained that it was immaterial what the underlying mechanism of action was, and also whether the complexes acted on a specific target and whether a comparator such as whey protein isolate or uncomplexed WPM was explicitly mentioned in claim 1. The skilled person would appreciate that the claimed WPM complexes were intended to be incorporated into a nutritional composition in place of whey proteins in order to achieve the stated therapeutic effect. The board concluded that, in the context of the invention, the claimed compositions comprising WPM complexes could thus be regarded as "a substance or composition" within the meaning of Art. 54(5) EPC that was used to carry out the claimed therapeutic method.