Vitreo’s patent application for ‘means for application of a vitreous body for the purposes of prevention and medical treatment of ophthalmic disorders’ was denied by the patent office, because the claimed invention was considered to be excluded from patentability both as a method for medical treatment of human beings or animals through therapy or surgery and a method for diagnostics applied to human beings and animals.
Vitreo was given an additional term to file a response to the dismissal or to amend its patent application. Vitreo failed to do either within the given term and no patent was granted . In appeal, Vitreo argued that the term was not preclusive. The Supreme Administrative Court – as the highest instance – confirmed that the term was preclusive and dismissed the appeal.