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.
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
_____________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
Kluwer IP Law
The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?
Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.
