European Patent Office

T 1616/09 (Combination therapy with anti-neoplastic agent and DNA methylation inhibitor/SUPERGEN) du 27.08.2014

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T161609.20140827
Date de la décision
27 août 2014
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1616/09
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
02717415.0
Classe de la CIB
A61K 45/00A61P 35/00
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Versions JO
Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
RESTORATION OF CANCER-SUPPRESSING FUNCTIONS TO NEOPLASTIC CELLS THROUGH DNA HYPOMETHYLATION
Nom du demandeur
SuperGen, Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.3.02
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
Exergue
For the purposes of Article 83 EPC, the level of disclosure in the application which is required for claims directed to pharmaceutical compositions or kits is not the same as that which is required for medical-use claims. For claims directed to pharmaceutical compositions or kits it is in principle sufficient that the application provides information which allows the skilled person to produce the composition or kit, and that there are no substantiated doubts that it could indeed be used in therapy. For second-medical-use claims on the other hand it is required not only that the composition itself is disclosed in an enabling way but also that its suitability for the claimed treatment is plausibly disclosed in the application (Reasons 6).
In the case of a claim directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising two classes of compounds which have both already been used in therapy in the prior art, there is a priori no reason to doubt that such a pharmaceutical composition can be produced; no specific functional effect has to be demonstrated (Reasons 6.1.1 and 6.1.2).
In the case of second-medical-use claims, if the claimed therapeutic effect was already known to the skilled person at the priority date, it is not necessary to demonstrate it in the application (Reasons 6.2.2).
Affaires citées
T 0609/02

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.