A second medical use claim can be based on a novel dosage regimen. In decision T317/95 a Board of Appeal decided that this type of claim was not allowable. It regarded the activity of administrating a medicine as a therapeutic treatment and, hence, an activity in a field excluded from patentability. Since the patent right must be in the industrial and commercial field, the distinguishing feature of the claim should not relate to non-commercial and non-industrial medical activities. However, closer inspection of the decision showed that the reasoning of the Board was in conflict with decision G5/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In spite of this, several other decisions refused claims based on dosage regimens.
Decision T1020/03 disagreed with the earlier decisions and allowed claims based on a drug regimen, showing that the earlier decisions did not follow the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Subsequently, the President of the EPO approved the use of T1020/03 by the examining divisions.
Decision T1319/04 has asked the Enlarged Board of Appeal to decide whether a novel dosage regiment for an otherwise known therapeutic purpose is sufficient to confer patentability on that use under the EPC 2000, since decision T1020/03 was taken under the EPC 1973.
In February 2010 the Enlarged Board of Appeal has pronounced its decision G2/08. It gave the following summary:
“I. Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, Article 54(5) EPC does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness.
II. Such patenting is also not excluded where a dosage regime is the only feature claimed which is not comprised in the state of the art.
III. Where the subject matter of a claim is rendered novel only by a new therapeutic use of a medicament, such claim may no longer have the format of a so called Swiss-type claim as instituted by decision G 5/83. Future applicants must comply with this new situation three months after publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the EPO.”
The Enlarged Board of Appeal arrived at point I of the summary by giving a broad interpretation to ‘any specific use’ in Article 54(5) EPC; the specific use need not be the treatment of another disease. A dosage regimen is not given another treatment than the one given to any other specific use acknowledged in the case law; hence, patenting is not excluded where a dosage regime is the only new feature claimed.
The Swiss-type claim directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified therapeutic application, as permitted by decision G5/83, was used to fill a gap in the legal provisions of the EPC 1973. Article 54(5) EPC 2000, permitting a purpose-related product protection for any further specific use of a known medicament in a method of therapy, closes the loophole. Since the reason for the Swiss-type claim has ceased to exist, the Swiss-type claim may no longer be used.
The abolishment of the Swiss-type claim has no retroactive effect and applies only to future applications that have a date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, a priority date later than three months after publication of G2/08 in the Official Journal of the EPO. At the time of writing (April 2010), the decision had not yet been published.
_____________________________
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.
