PATENT FORMALITIES
Although the patentability of biotechnological inventions as described in a European patent application should meet substantive requirements such as novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, latest developments at the European Patent Offi ce suggest that formalities have become more and more important, say Caroline Pallard and Peter ten Haaft.
Divisional applications
The rules for filing European divisional applications have been drastically limited for applicants for two years.
Since April 1, 2010, the rules for filing a European divisional patent application have been restricted—rules 36(1)(a) and 36(1) (b). Under rule 36(1)(a), an applicant has 24 months to file a European divisional calculated from the first European office action of
the
earliest application, the so-called ‘voluntary divisional’. A second scenario is possible under rule 36(1)(b): if a lack of unity has been formulated by the examination division in an earlier application in any communication and if this ‘specific objection (ie, lack of unity) was raised for the first time’, then the applicant is given 24 months from said communication to file a divisional application (‘mandatory divisional’).
In practice, this means that applicants should anticipate
upon filing of an
application whether they would like to keep the possibility open to have more than 24 months after the first communication from the examining division for filing a divisional application. For several reasons, especially for biotechnological inventions, an applicant needs to postpone as much as possible the deadline for filing a divisional. The majority of biotechnological inventions (ie, antibodies, peptides, oligonucleotides, proteins, and uses thereof ) encompass a plurality of inventions and potentially do not meet the requirements of Article 82 of the European Patent Convention (EPC). Biotechnological start-ups cannot afford to file one single application per invention in view of the costs involved especially since at the time of filing, they do not yet know which invention is the most promising and will be developed.
Therefore, in view of these new rules, applicants are forced to make use of
the
second scenario mentioned above: file a parental application with
unified claims
and a description comprising a reservoir of potential additional inventions. A voluntary divisional is filed following rule 36(1)(a) with claims that are non-unified. A lack of unity is then raised for the first time in an office action from the examining division triggering a new 24-month period for filing
www.worldipreview.com
a second divisional application. The situation depicted here seems quite clear.
In practice, it means that it is crucial that the claims of the parental application should be considered as unified. An intensive written and oral discussion with one examiner in a specific case we handled taught that examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO) do not always seem aware of the impact of these new rules for biotechnological start-ups. It was crucial for the client to be sure that pending claims of a pending European patent (EP) application were unified to be entitled to get a ‘first lack of unity’ in a hypothetical future application. In this specific case, fortunately, the examiner
be raised in this divisional application should be considered as a ‘first lack of unity’ since peptides C and D have never been claimed before. The examiner indicated that this situation was quite uncertain. He seemed to be of the opinion that since peptides A, B, C, and D relate to ‘similar types of inventions’, it could be expected that this second lack of unity would not be considered as a ‘lack of unity raised for the first time’. In this specific case, during an interview, the examiner advised us to file a divisional application and see how the EPO would react. This is of course an unacceptable, expensive and extreme solution, especially for small start-ups. There is an urgent need for clarification of the meaning of ‘raised for the first time’ in rule 36(1)(b). However we fear that the applicant will have to wait for a few years and learn to live in the uncertainty until this specific point of law is clarified.
“IT APPEARS THAT AN AMENDMENT MUST BE LITERALLY DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION AS FILED WITHIN A SINGLE EMBODIMENT TO FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 123(2) EPC.”
Basis for amendments during examination and opposition
Over the years, EPO examiners have become more strict in assessing whether an amendment has basis in the application as filed.
During examination and opposition
proceedings, the applicant has the right to amend an application in view of prior art that manifested after the filing date of the application. In general this concerns limitation of the claims to overcome objections in view of
the prior art cited.
admitted at the end of the interview that the set of claims was unified. It was even confirmed in a written communication.
Another hurdle is the meaning of the expression ‘lack of unity raised for the first time’ in rule 36(1)(b), which is still quite unclear. Imagine a parental application discloses peptides A, B, C and D. In the parental application, peptides A and B are claimed, while peptides C and D are present only in the description. A lack of unity is issued in this parental application.
Subsequently a divisional application is filed claiming peptides C and D. One would expect and assume that the lack of unity which will
Since the applicant should not be placed in a position where he can improve his position in view of insight in the field of the invention that has been acquired since the date of filing, the amendments may not relate to subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed. This is governed by Article 123(2) EPC, which thus protects the legal certainty of the public; the public can rely on the contents of the application as filed in the register of the EPO for assessing the aspired scope of protection.
When an amendment is made, the EPO applies the novelty test for assessing whether the amendment has been disclosed in the application as filed. Simply put, when the amendment is novel in view of the application as filed, the amendment extends beyond the application as filed.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2012 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64