T 0571/10 () of 3.6.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T057110.20140603
Date of decision: 03 June 2014
Case number: T 0571/10
Application number: 08165575.5
IPC class: A61K 9/20
A61K 31/505
A61K 9/16
A61K 9/26
A61K 9/32
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 412 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Pharmaceutical compositions comprising a HMG COA reductase inhibitor
Applicant name: AstraZeneca AB
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 54(3)
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 76(1)
European Patent Convention Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 88(2)
European Patent Convention Art 88(3)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention R 43(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13
Travaux préparatoires M/48/I, Section C
Keywords: Late-filed request - justification for late filing (yes)
Divisional application - added subject-matter (no)
Claims - essential features
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Priority - "OR"-claims using a generic term or formula
Priority - partial priority (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Catchwords:

In a case in which a single priority is claimed for a given application and a number of features of a claim of said application are generalisations of specific features disclosed in the priority document, a partial priority is to be acknowledged, as long as it is possible to conceptually identify, by a comparison of the claimed subject-matter with the disclosure of the priority document, a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters, including among the alternatives the specific embodiments which are directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority document. In order for this condition to be met, it is not necessary that the clearly defined alternative subject-matters are spelt out as such in the application, nor that the word "or" actually occurs (see point 4.5.12).

This condition extends to the case of multiple priorities. In that case, a comparison with the disclosure of each of the priority documents is necessary and for each of the clearly defined alternative subject-matters the earliest priority from which the alternative subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable is acknowledged (see point 4.5.13).

Cited decisions:
G 0002/98
T 1127/00
T 1443/05
T 1877/08
T 0476/09
T 1222/11
Citing decisions:
G 0001/15
T 0557/13

19 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPC Implementing Rules

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law