Where a substance or composition is already known to have been used in a ‘first medical use’, it may still be patentable for any second or further use, provided that said use is novel and inventive. This is an exception from the general principle that product claims can only be obtained for (absolutely) novel products. ‘Second Medical Use’ patents are an important component of the potential second-line patent protection.
In a very recently published decision of 4 March 2011 the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dealt with the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal 2/08 and approved a dosage regime for a pharmaceutical product as patentable subject matter of a Swiss type claim under the EPC 1973. According to the Supreme Court such claim…
In a judgment issued on September 28, 2010, the Court of First Instance of Paris held that a dosage regime is effectively a method of treatment and is, as such, excluded from patentability in view of Article 53c of EPC 2000. In this particular case, the use of finasteride for the treatment of androgenic alopecia…
By a judgement dated 28 September 2010, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris held that claims 1, 2 and 3 of the French designation of Merck & Co. Ltd’s Patent EP 0 724 444 were invalid for being excluded from the scope of patentability in accordance with the provisions of Article 53(c) EPC 2000 (former Article 52 (4) EPC 1973). The court held that the invention the subject-matter of main claim 1 was only a new dosage regime ranging from 0.05 to 1 mg) of an already known compound (finasteride) in an already known therapeutic application (the treatment of hyperandrogenic conditions and especially the treatment of androgenic alopecia). A mere new dosage regime is not a second medical use but a therapeutic method excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53 (c) EPC 2000.
In decision G2/08, available on the EPO website, the Enlarged Board of Appeal provides a problem in relation to the Swiss type claims. It announces the abolition of the use of these claims in point 7.1.4 of the Reasons: “In order to ensure legal certainty and to protect legitimate interests of applicants, the abolition of…
This matter concerns levocetirizine, which is an enantiomer of cetirizine. The Court held that, at the priority date, it would have been obvious to the skilled person to check whether levocetirizine (which had been individually disclosed before the priority date) had improved pharmacological characteristics compared to the racemic mixture (i.e. cetirizine). As a rule, resolving…
By decision no. 6967/2009 of 14 May 2009, the IP Chamber of the Court of Milan found for the invalidity of a patent claiming the second medical use of a known pharmaceutical product for lack of inventive step. This decision is remarkable for at least two reasons. Firstly, the Court departed from the findings of…
The Enlarged Board of Appeal answers three questions of law as follows: Question 1: 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. Question 2: Such patenting is…
