Brevetto negato per un product-by-process claim: decisione del Board of Appeal

Rose Hughes su IPKat dà oggi conto di una interessante decisione del Board of appeal dell’EUIPO su un product by process patent (titolo dell’invenzione: Ocular implant obtained by double extrusion process ), non frequenti.

E’ la decisione 7 giugno 2022 , caso n° T 1869/ 19 – 3.3.07 , Allergan Inc. c. Generics ltd .

Concesso in prima istanza, poi revocato dalla Opposition division con decisione ora confermata dall”Appello

Il motivo è la mancanza di novità per insufficiente descrizione della novità apportata dal process asseritamente nuovo  (le caratteriostioche del prdotto, invece, erano già note)

<< With regard to these product-by-process features, such
features can only contribute to the novelty of the
claimed implant insofar as they give rise to a distinct
and identifiable characteristic of the product.
Accordingly, in order to establish novelty, it has to
be verified that the process features of the “productby-process” claim are such that the resulting product
is influenced by them in a way that it can be
distinguished from the products of the prior art
produced by a different process.
>>, § 1.3.

<< In the absence of any limitation in claim 1 as to the
conditions of the milling steps (a) and (b), and
considering that the size of dexamethasone in D1 is
identical to the claimed size, namely a diameter of
less than 10 μm, and the size of PLGA in D1 is
comprised between 9-12 μm in diameter while undefined
in claim 1 of the main request, it must be concluded
that the milling steps (a) and (b) cannot impart any
identifiable differentiating feature to the implant.
This conclusion was not disputed by the appellant.
>>, § 1.3.1

<< Consequently, the Board concurs with the opposition
division that a double extrusion as claimed in claim 1
of the main request does not inevitably cause the
obtainable product to have distinctive properties and
to be distinguishable from a bioerodible PLGA/
dexamethasone ocular implant made by single extrusion
as disclosed in D1 (see Decision of the opposition
division, point 2.5)
>>, § 1.4