Dépôt de Brevet Étude de cas

Pierre Bonnard

Description

EPC case law concerning biotech• Clarity problems (Art. 84 EPC)• Sufficiency of disclosure problems (Art. 83 EPC)• Industrial Applicability problems (Art. 57 EPC)Béatrice ORESConseil en Propriété Industrielle1KPAA/CNCPI – Paris – November 6, 2009Clarity (Art. 84 EPC)The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought.They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description (A. 84 EPC).2KPAA/CNCPI – Paris – November 6, 2009Clarity problems• The wording of a claim must be such that the skilled person has no question as regards the scope of the claim (T923/92).• A claim must contain all the essential techni- cal features of the claimed subject-matter (T269/87).3KPAA/CNCPI – Paris – November 6, 2009Clarity problems• Functional features may be admitted in a claim, if they cannot otherwise be defined more precisely without restricting the scope of the invention and if in relation to these features the description provides instructions which are sufficiently clear for the expert to put the invention into practice with no more then a reasonable amount of experimentation (T391/91)4KPAA/CNCPI – Paris – November 6, 2009Clarity problems• In cases where the core of the claimed invention consists in the achievement of a given technical effect by known techniques in different areas of application and serious doubts exist as to whether this effect can readily be obtained for the whole range of applications ...

Informations

• Publié par: Zaur
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English

Extrait

KPAA/

EPC case law concerning biotech

 •Clarity problems (Art. 84 EPC)

•Sufficiency of disclosure problems (Art. 83 EPC)

•Industrial Applicability problems (Art. 57 EPC)  

Béatrice ORES Conseil en Propriété Industrielle

CNCPI  –Pari s– oNvember6 ,2 0091

KPAA/CN

Clarity (Art. 84 EPC)

The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought.

They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description (A. 84 EPC).

CPI  –Pari s– oNvember 6,2 0092

KPAA/

Clarity problems

•The wording of a claim must be such that the skilled person has no question as regards the scope of the claim (T923/92). •A claim must contain all the essential techni- cal features of the claimed subject-matter (T269/87).

CNCPI  –Paris  –November 6, 20093

KPAA/

 •

CNC

Clarity problems

Functional features may be admitted in a claim, if they cannot otherwise be defined more precisely without restricting the scope of the invention and if in relation to these features the description provides instructions which are sufficiently clear for the expert to put the invention into practice with no more then a reasonable amount of experimentation (T391/91)

PI  –Pari s– November 6, 20094

KPAA/

•  

CN

Clarity problems

In cases where the core of the claimed invention consists in the achievement of a given technical effect by known techniques in different areas of application and serious doubts exist as to whether this effect can readily be obtained for the whole range of applications claimed, ample technical details and more than one example may be necessary in order to support claims of a broad scope.

CPI  –Pari s– oNvember 6,2 0095

KPAA/

Clarity problems

•Accordingly, claims of broad scope are not allowable, if the skilled person, after reading the description, is not able to readily perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill. (T694/92)

CNCPI  –Pari s –oNvember6 ,2 0096

KPAA/C

Clarity problems

The scope of protection must correspond to the technical contribution (T694/92)

NCPI  –Pari s– oNvember6 , 20097

KPAA/

Sufficiency of disclosure

•The European Patent Application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (A. 83 EPC).

CNCPI  –Paris  –November 6, 20098

KPAA/

Sufficiency of disclosure

•The examination of sufficiency of disclosure must take in account the following parameters (T158/91): (a) the character of the technical field and the average amount of effort necessary to put into practice a certain written disclosure in that technical field; (b) the time when the disclosure was presented to the public and the corresponding common general knowledge; (c) the amount of reliable technical details disclosed in a document.

CNCPI  –Paris  –November6 ,2 0099

KPAA/

Sufficiency of disclosure

Routine experimentation

Amount of trial and error

Undue burden Chance to obtain the invention

CNCPI  –Paris  –November 6, 2009

A detailed description of the invention is provided; it is easily reproducible It suffices for the disclosure of an invention that the means intended to carry out the invention are clearly disclosed in technical terms which render them implementable and that the intended result is achieved at least in some, equally realistic, cases (T 487/91). The occasional failure of a process as claimed does not impair its reproducibility if only a few attempts are required to transform failure into success, provided that these attempts are kept within reasonable bounds and do not require an inventive step The skilled person must find the means to reproduce the claimed invention After mutagenesis, to detect the micro- organism which over express the molecule of interest without the screening method being described

10

KPAA/CNC

Principle No1 (for the applicant/patentee)

The Application as filed must contain sufficient information to allow a person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to carry out the invention within thewhole area that isclaimed. (T409/91)

PI  –Paris  –November6 , 200911