G 0002/21 (Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (plausibility)) of 23.03.2023

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:2023:G000221.20230323

Date of decision

23 March 2023

Case number

G 0002/21

Petition for review of

Application number

12002626.5

IPC class

A01N 43/56 A01N 51/00

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Abstract on EPC2000 Art 056

Application title

Insecticide compositions

Applicant name

Sumitomo Chemical Company, Limited

Opponent name

Syngenta Limited

Board

Headnote

I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.

Relevant legal provisions

- 07/16446 - Teva / Sepracor- 15-19726 - Merck c/ Teva- 16/01225 - Ethypharm / MSD- 200.195.459/01 - Leo Pharma v Sandoz- 200.237.828/01 - Astrazeneca v Sandoz- 3 Ni 20/15 - Erlotinib hydrochloride- 4a_149/2021- 5a_250/2012- Accord v Medac [2016] EWHC 24 (Pat)- Actavis Group PTC EHF & Anr v Eli Lilly & Co [2015] EWHC 3294 (Pat)- C/09/627925 / KG ZA 22-326 - Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v Sandoz- Cantel Medical (UK) Ltd v Arc Medical Design Ltd [2018] EWHC 345 (Pat)- Eli Lilly and Co and other companies v Genentech, Inc [2019] EWHC 387 (Pat)- FibroGen Inc. v Akebia Therapeutics Inc. and another company; Astellas Pharma Inc. v Akebia Therapeutics Inc. and other companies [2021] EWCA Civ 1279- Fibrogen v Akebia [2021] EWCA Civ 1279- Generics (UK) (trading as Mylan) v. Warner-Lambert Company Ltd. [2018] UKSC 56- Generics (UK) Ltd trading as Mylan and another v Yeda Research and Development Company [2017] EWHC 2629 (Pat)- Hospira UK Ltd, v Cubist Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2016] EWHC 1285 (Pat)- Illumina Cambridge Ltd v Latvia MGI Tech SIA and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1924- Positec Power Tools Europe Ltd v Husqvarna AB [2016] EWHC 1061 (Pat)- Saint-Gobain Adfors SAS v 3m Innovative Properties Co [2022] EWHC 1018 (Pat)- Sandoz Ltd and another v Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Co and another [2022] EWHC 822 (Pat)- Schlumberger v EGMS [2010] EWCA Civ 819- Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1006- X ZB 2/71 - Imidazoline- X ZB 3/69 - AnthradipyrazolA. Slade, Plausibility: a conditio sine qua non of patent law?, Intellectual Property Law Quarterly 2020, 3, 180A.J.K. Wells, Technical contribution and plausibility: the approach of the European Patent Office and the courts of England and Wales, Journal of intellectual property law & practice 2019, Vol 14 issue 10, 784AIPPI 2019 - 2019 Study Report - Plausibility: Summary Report by J.P. Osha, Reporter General, 10 July 2019 - group reports Switzerland, Germany, France, The Netherlands and United KingdomBundespatentgerichtC. Birss, A. Waugh, T. Mitcheson, D. Campbell, J. Turner, T. Hinchliffe, Terrel on the Law of Patents, 19th edition, 2020C. Floyd, Plausibility: where from and where to?, GRUR 2021, 185C.H. van Rhee, Evidence in civil procedure in the Netherlands: tradition and modernity, in C.H. van Rhee, A. Uzelac (eds.), Evidence in Contemporary Civil Procedure. Fundamental issues in a Comparative Perspective, 2015, 266-267Decisions of national courts citedDutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering) Art 152(2)England and Wales Court of AppealEngland and Wales High Court, Patents CourtEuropean Patent Convention Art 100 European Patent Convention Art 101(2)European Patent Convention Art 106(1)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 112(2)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 117 European Patent Convention Art 125 European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54 European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 83 European Patent Convention R 117 European Patent Convention R 118 European Patent Convention R 119 European Patent Convention R 120 European Patent Convention R 121 European Patent Convention R 122 European Patent Convention R 123 European Patent Convention R 124 European Patent Convention R 150 European Patent Convention R 4France: Cour de cassationGermanyGermany: BundesgerichtshofJ. Schmidt-Szalewski, Fasc. 4260 of Jurisclasseur BrevetsLaw of the Contracting StatesLiteratureM. Ackermann, No Need for 'Plausibility' in German Patent Law, GRUR 2021, 3P. Johnson, Plausible deniability, GRUR Int. 2019, 524R. Jacob, Plausibility and Policy, Bio-Science Law Review 2020, 17(6), 223Rechtsbank Den HaagRules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 022Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 10Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 13Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 14(2)Rules of procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal Art 9Schulte, Patentgesetz mit EPC, R. Schulte (ed.), 11th edition, 2022SwitzerlandSwitzerland: BundesgerichtThe NetherlandsThe Netherlands: Gerechtshof Den HaagTribunal de Grande Instance de ParisUnited Kingdom: UK Supreme CourtVisser's Annotated European Patent Convention, 2021 edition, Lai, Visser, de Lange, et al

Keywords

admissibility of referral - (yes)
re-phrasing of the referred questions - no
extending the scope of the referred questions - no
principle of free evaluation of evidence - exception to the principle required - no
inventive step - reliance on technical effect - yes, based on the application as originally filed

Catchword

Cited cases

G 0003/97 G 0004/97 G 0002/08 G 0002/10 G 0001/12 G 0001/13 G 0003/14 G 0001/19 G 0003/19 G 0001/21 T 0390/88 T 0482/89 T 0838/92 T 0939/92 T 0798/93 T 0543/95 T 0558/95 T 0142/97 T 0592/98 T 0278/00 T 0329/02 T 0609/02 T 0893/02 T 0972/02 T 1110/03 T 0474/04 T 1329/04 T 0578/06 T 1599/06 T 0536/07 T 1437/07 T 1642/07 T 0545/08 T 1545/08 T 0108/09 T 1797/09 T 0266/10 T 0415/11 T 0754/11 T 1677/11 T 1791/11 T 0125/12 T 0419/12 T 0760/12 T 0863/12 T 2294/12 T 0235/13 T 0895/13 T 1045/13 T 1285/13 T 2059/13 T 2348/13 T 2371/13 T 0787/14 T 0887/14 T 1363/14 T 0321/15 T 0919/15 T 2097/15 T 2238/15 T 0179/16 T 0184/16 T 0488/16 T 0517/16 T 0578/16 T 0978/16 T 1499/16 T 2730/16 T 0229/17 T 1322/17 T 1680/17 T 2200/17 T 0031/18 T 0116/18 T 0122/18 T 0334/18 T 0377/18 T 0391/18 T 1306/18 T 1442/18 T 2923/18 T 1099/19 T 1343/19 T 1571/19 T 2029/19 T 2963/19 T 3109/19 T 2015/20

Citing cases

R 0004/24 R 0002/25 T 1499/16 T 2790/17 T 0116/18 T 0687/19 T 1203/19 T 1525/19 T 1989/19 T 2465/19 T 2716/19 T 2735/19 T 0025/20 T 0294/20 T 0314/20 T 0852/20 T 1023/20 T 1138/20 T 1210/20 T 1435/20 T 1515/20 T 0258/21 T 0569/21 T 0681/21 T 0728/21 T 0873/21 T 0885/21 T 0887/21 T 0990/21 T 1045/21 T 1255/21 T 1329/21 T 1394/21 T 1445/21 T 1446/21 T 1602/21 T 1616/21 T 1638/21 T 1698/21 T 1732/21 T 1779/21 T 1825/21 T 1879/21 T 1891/21 T 2036/21 T 2046/21 T 2086/21 T 2168/21 T 0023/22 T 0166/22 T 0170/22 T 0197/22 T 0318/22 T 0364/22 T 0509/22 T 0518/22 T 0529/22 T 0552/22 T 0589/22 T 0601/22 T 0687/22 T 0832/22 T 0840/22 T 0843/22 T 0853/22 T 0936/22 T 0996/22 T 1057/22 T 1125/22 T 1249/22 T 1283/22 T 1551/22 T 1796/22 T 1865/22 T 1958/22 T 1994/22 T 2010/22 T 2037/22 T 2219/22 T 2363/22 T 2424/22 T 2463/22 T 2499/22 T 0228/23 T 0259/23 T 0287/23 T 0372/23 T 0560/23 T 0593/23 T 0709/23 T 0827/23 T 0867/23 T 0979/23 T 1027/23 T 1207/23 T 1232/23 T 1253/23 T 1269/23 T 1272/23 T 1354/23 T 1385/23 T 1456/23 T 1465/23 T 1580/23 T 1677/23 T 1692/23 T 1739/23 T 1822/23 T 1844/23 T 1847/23 T 1915/23 T 1934/23 T 1950/23 T 0072/24 T 0331/24 T 0722/24 T 0729/24

Order

For these reasons it is decided that the questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are answered as follows:

1. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.

2. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.