本篇提出來的是,爭議涉及一件專利的「優先權」、「充分揭露」、「新穎性」、「進步性」與「明確性」的討論(夠完整吧!),這樣可以看出歐洲專利局對一件專利的「標準」。我仍建議各位朋友可以直接參照原訴願決定內容。
案件編號:T 0065/15
專利申請號:03744867.7
專利公開號:EP1494646
上訴人:Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft...etc. (異議人)
被上訴人:Warner Chilcott (Ireland) Limited (專利權人)
系爭專利:European patent No. 1 494 646
涉及法條:
修正超出
Article 123 Amendments
(2) The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed.
(3) The European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers.
新穎性
Article 54 Novelty
(2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application.
進步性
Article 56 Inventive step
An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. If the state of the art also includes documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3, these documents shall not be considered in deciding whether there has been an inventive step.
系爭專利關於一種在陰道內遞送藥物的裝置,結合具有療效的藥劑與一種生物相容性彈性體聚合物,以形成可以在陰道內遞送的混合物,經固化與熟化(專利重點),最後製成遞送用的護套(保險套)。
Claim 1界定遞送前述藥物的方法,範圍涉及藥劑的成份、固化的條件,以及熟化的溫度與時間條件:
1. A method for altering the release characteristics of an intravaginal matrix drug delivery device, the method comprising preparing the drug delivery device by a process comprising the steps of:
(i) (a) combining greater than or equal to 30% (w/w) of at least one therapeutic agent with at least one biocompatible elastomeric polymer to form a mix for preparing a drug delivery device having reduced day 1 release rates or
(i) (b) combining less than 30% (w/w) of at least one therapeutic agent with at least one biocompatible elastomeric polymer to form a mix for preparing a drug delivery device having increased day 1 release rates;
(ii) curing said mix to form a polymer matrix, in which the biocompatible elastomeric polymer is silicone and either the curing step is carried out at 50-100°C for 1-10 minutes, optionally for 1.5 to 5 minutes, or the curing step is carried out at 15-25°C for 1-24 hours ; and
(iii) maturing said shape-retaining polymer matrix under temperature and time conditions sufficient to form the intravaginal drug delivery device, in which said maturing step is carried out at 40-100°C for 2-72 hours.
順便貼一下EPO專利公開的claim tree功能:
在異議程序中,討論「新穎性」時,先前技術D1(WO 02/076426,最接近前案)是在後公開的前案,不過經檢驗後系爭專利因為不能主張優先權,因此仍需面對D1的阻礙,不過,D1並未揭露系爭專利發明中一些熟化的條件,因此系爭專利對於D1具有新穎性。
「進步性」討論時,就看D1與系爭專利之間差異的「熟化」步驟是否具有進步性,經查,系爭專利熟化程序可以加快製造遞送裝置的步驟,並揭露於系爭專利中的某個範例中,而D1則是揭露另一種熟化程序中的藥物劑量,而此實施為降低製程效率,因此判斷相關領域技術人員沒有理由要使用D1的熟化程序,因此系爭專利具有進步性。
優先權(priority):
上訴議題並未提到優先權問題,不過訴願委員會認為沒有必要否決先前決定,因此公開於系爭專利優先權與申請日之間的D1仍為適格的前案。
充分揭露(sufficiency of disclosure):
異議人對此結論上訴歐洲訴願委員會,特別針對「充分揭露」的問題,系爭專利的重點在於遞送藥物中的藥劑成份,而系爭專利說明書中能夠支持請求項中成份可以加快製程的內容有限,然而,訴願委員會認為說明書揭露的知識讓相關領域技術人員可以據以實現,因此已達充分揭露的標準。
新穎性(novelty):
這裡特別的是,一件前案(D1)可能揭露各種各樣的實施態樣,「分開」比對可能容易對應到系爭專利的請求項範圍,不過,訴願委員會判斷,D1並沒有在「單一實施例」中揭露系爭專利請求項中特徵的組合;而D2(US 4,155,991)沒有揭露系爭專利的固化步驟。因此,系爭專利相對於D1與D2具有新穎性。
進步性(inventive step):
先找到最接近前案(此例為D1),先得出與系爭專利請求項發明的差異(此例為"熟化程序"),這部分已經在專利局審查異議程序時確立「D1的步驟將降低製作藥物遞送裝置的速度」,從效果來看,D1甚至反向教示(teach away,這是我的解釋),並不能教示相關技術人員執行系爭專利的技術。接著再找另一前案對比最接近前案與系爭專利的差異,另一前案D11亦未揭露可以加快製作遞送裝置,且以D11揭露的成份來看,沒有結合D1與D11的理由。因此,系爭專利具有進步性。
解決技術問題(technical problem):
討論進步性時,前案與系爭案的技術問題為議題之一,顯然訴願委員會認為,D1未揭露的熟化程序使得不能解決如系爭專利解決的製作遞送裝置的問題。
明確性(clarity):
上訴人提出系爭專利請求項1不明確,然而,訴願委員會認為上訴人並未建立異議理由與"修正後"請求項1之間的關聯,因此不足證明不明確。
歐洲訴願委員會決定:
系爭專利範圍修正符合規定,並已充分揭露。系爭專利修正後範圍符合新穎性與進步性規定。
訴願委員會決定:http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t150065eu1.pdf
參考資料:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intravaginal_administration
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/阴道内给药
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言