| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T024195.20000614 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 June 2000 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0241/95 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 91302599.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 31/135 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Use of R-Fluoxetine as selective serotonin IC-receptor ligands | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. The selective occupation of a receptor cannot be considered in itself as a therapeutic application; the discovery that a substance selectively binds a receptor, even if representing an important piece of scientific knowledge, still needs to find a practical application in the form of a defined, real treatment of any pathological condition in order to make a technical contribution to the art and to be considered as an invention eligible for patent protection (see reasons, point 3.1.2). II. When a claim is directed to a further therapeutic application of a medicament and the condition to be treated is defined in functional terms, e.g. any condition susceptible of being improved or prevented by selective occupation of a specific receptor, the claim can be regarded as clear only if instructions, in the form of experimental tests or any testable criteria, are available from the patent documents or from the common general knowledge allowing the skilled person to recognise which conditions fall within the functional definition and accordingly within the scope of the claim (see reasons, point 3.1.1) (following T 68/85, Synergistic herbicides/ CIBA-GEIGY, OJ EPO 1987, 228). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Main request: clarity of the functional definition (no) First auxiliary request: novelty (no); therapeutic effect already described in animals Second auxiliary request: specific diseases never considered by the Examining Division - remittal to the department of first instance |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950241ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
19 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application
EPO Guidelines - G Patentability
Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
Case Law Book: I Patentability
XCLR I C 7.2.4.I Discovery of a previously unknown property of a compound underlying the known effect