For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Thursday, 19 June 2008

EPO hearing on stem cells next week


The IPKat has been informed, thanks to le blog du droit européen des brevets as well as a recent announcement on the EPO website, that oral proceedings, which will be open to the public, are due to be held on 24-25 June at the EPO in Munich on the Enlarged Board of Appeal case G 2/06. This relates to case T 1374/04, in which the following questions were referred to the enlarged board relating to exceptions to patentability under Rule 28 EPC.

"1. Does [Rule 28(c)] EPC apply to an application filed before the entry into force of the rule?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, does [Rule 28(c)] EPC forbid the patenting of claims directed to products (here: human embryonic stem cell cultures) which - as described in the application — at the filing date could be prepared exclusively by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of the human embryos from which the said products are derived, if the said method is not part of the claims?

3. If the answer to question 1 or 2 is no, does Article 53(a) EPC forbid patenting such claims?


4. In the context of questions 2 and 3, is it of relevance that after the filing date the same products could be obtained without having to recur to a method necessarily involving the destruction of human embryos (here: eg derivation from available human embryonic cell lines)?
"
The application in question, filed by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, relates to a process for preparing primate embryonic stem cells, and describes methods by which stem cells derived from a primate embryo can be maintained in vitro for a long period of time without losing their potential to differentiate into any cell of the body.

An EPO Examining Division had previously refused the application on the grounds that the method used primate (including human) embryos as the starting material, and these were destroyed in the process. The Examining Division's view was this was contrary to Rule 28 (or Rule 23a as it then was), as well as the EC Biotech Directive 98/44.

The Enlarged Board then invited comments from the EPO President, as well as the public, and has received an enormous amount of material (all of which is accessible via epoline), including a short (and fairly uninformative) letter from the President. The Board will be hearing the President and the applicant at the hearing, but will unsurprisingly not be making its decision immediately.

The IPKat, who does not work in the biotech patenting field, is very wary about commenting further on this case, but is fairly confident that there will be plenty of heat and not much light coming from many of the amicus curiae in this case, given the controversial nature of the subject matter. It may therefore be worth showing up just to see the sideshow, if you're into that kind of thing. Failing that, it's always worth turning up to see Alison Brimelow in action.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

David, what makes you think that in these Enlarged Board proceedings Ms Brimelow herself would take the floor?

David said...

Perhaps I am reading too much into the following bit of the EPO press release:

"At these oral proceedings, the EBoA will hear the patent applicant and the President of the EPO".

What do you think this means?

Anonymous said...

David,
in these sort of issues very specific legal and technical knowledge is required (and lost of time for reading and understanding all the documents on file....) and therefore the President of the EPO will most probably be represented by staff of the EPO legal service (DG5).
Those persons most probably also prepared the comments of the President in this case.

David said...

Mind you, even the applicant's representative doesn't know if the President (whether this means Ms Brimelow in person or not) is going to appear at the hearing, according to their letter of 10 June. Shouldn't G4/95 apply in this case? Isn't it a bit unfair to not let the applicant know until so late in the day?

Anonymous said...

Why should this be "unfair"?
Those who have experience in appeal proceedings know that only the Board composition and who the parties are is known. Although for reasons of courtesy some representatives announce their personal presence beforehand, which person or persons actually represent(s) a party during oral proceedings remains uncertain till the beginning of the oral proceedings.
Courtesy and fairness are neither legal nor linguistic synonyms.

Anonymous said...

I address letters to the UK Patent Office to "The Comptroller" - I don't really expect he reads them all in person.

Anonymous said...

"from many of the amicus curiae" won't do. Preferably "from many of the amici curiae"; or possibly "from many of the amicis curiae"; not "from many amicorum curiae".
DME

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':