Transcript AIPLA_Talk_Oct13_Final

Patent Eligibility in Europe
Colo(u)ring the Gre/ay Areas
Ilya Kazi and Andrew Bentham
On behalf of
International Liaison Committee
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
IN ASSOCIATION
Supporting
logos to go WITH
in this
box if there aren’t any please
delete the box and text
Introductions
Ilya Kazi
Mathys & Squire LLP
[email protected]
Andrew Bentham
J A Kemp
[email protected]
Patent Eligibility in Europe
• Summary of the Law
• Computer-Implemented Inventions
–
–
–
–
–
How is this assessed in Europe
Particular problems for business methods
The UK approach
Comparison with the US
Advice for drafting
• Issues in Life Sciences
Patentable Inventions
Art. 52(1)
European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in
all fields of technology, provided that they are new,
involve an inventive step and are susceptible of
industrial application.
Patentable Inventions
Art. 52(2)
The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the
meaning of paragraph 1:
a) Discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
b) Aesthetic creations;
c) Schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts,
playing games or doing business, and programs for
computers;
d) Presentations of information.
Art. 52(3)
Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject matter or
activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent
application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities
as such.
Exceptions to Patentability
Art 53 EPC
European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
a) Inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to “ordre
public” or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary
merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the
Contracting states;
b) Plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the
production of plants of animals; this provision shall not apply to
microbiological processes or the products thereof;
c) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy
and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this
provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or
compositions, for use in any of these methods.
The Eligibility Continuum
Business
Methods
Therapy
ComputerStem Plant IP
Implemented Surgery Genes
Cells Protection
Diagnosis
Systems
Patentability of Software: Summary
• Most computer software implemented inventions are
patentable in Europe.
• Most difficulties arise over so called “business
method” patents, where the business method is
implemented using software on a computer system.
The EPO Approach
•
Consider patentability of claimed invention without
regard to prior art
– i.e. does the claimed invention have or use “any hardware”
•
If patentable then consider novelty and inventive
step
– When considering inventive step only consider the claim
features which contribute to the solution of a technical
problem
European Practice
• Hitachi T258/03
– Any hardware is sufficient to escape patentability exclusion
• Duns Licensing T154/04
– Assessment of novelty and inventive step can be based only
on technical features. Non-technical features to the extent
that they do not interact with the technical subject matter of
the claim for solving a technical problem, i.e. non technical
features as such, are ignored for assessing novelty and
inventive step […]
– A non technical feature may interact with technical elements
so as to produce a technical effect and to the extent it
contributes to the technical effect it must count as a technical
contribution
Where Problems Arise
In practice, we hit problems when the underlying
method implemented by software is:
•
•
•
•
An implementation of a business method
A presentation of information
A mental act
A mathematical method
Business Methods
For most software implemented inventions it should be straight
forward to identify a technical contribution. However, for “business
methods” it is not so easy. The different types of business method
can be categorised as follows:
A Known business methods for which computer implementation is
straightforward
• Mere automation and not patentable
B New and inventive business methods not involving computers or
other technical apparatus – “pure business method”
• Not patentable in UK or Europe, but in some cases may be patentable
in the US
C New and inventive business methods for which, once conceived,
computer implementation is straightforward
• Not patentable in UK or Europe, but patentable in other countries like
the US
D Business methods for which computer implementation is new and
inventive
• Patentable
Approach in the UK Courts
• Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] test:
1. Construe the claim;
2. Identify the actual contribution;
3. Ask if the actual contribution lies ‘solely’ within excluded
subject matter;
4. Check if actual contribution is technical.
•
•
Computer program product claims are allowable
Step 4 cannot be disregarded and must be
considered after or in combination with step 3
(Symbian [2008])
The UK Courts suggest that approaches in the UK
and Europe achieve the same results
Approach in the UK Courts – The Signposts
“Signposts” to a relevant technical effect
AT&T Knowledge Ventures [2009] modified by HTC v Apple [2013]
– whether the claimed technical effect has a technical effect on a
process which is carried on outside the computer;
– whether the claimed technical effect operates at the level of the
architecture of the computer, that is to say whether the effect is
produced irrespective of the data being processed or the
applications being run;
– whether the claimed technical effect results in the computer being
made to operate in a new way;
– whether the program makes the computer a better computer in the
sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;
– whether the perceived problem is overcome by the invention as
opposed to merely being circumvented.
Defining a “Technical Contribution”
The Elephant Test
Does the underlying method provide a technical contribution
beyond the normal operation of a standard computer?
Examples include:
• Increased speed or efficiency
• Reduced memory requirements
• Reduced data flow
• Operator convenience
• Improved reliability
• Improved security
• Reduced power consumption
• Simpler to manufacture
• Processing of data relating to physical entities
• Management of physical resources
Lantana Ltd v Comptroller [2013] EWHC 2673
30. ...at the relevant date (2008) two computers connected across the
internet was an entirely conventional computing arrangement. The fact
that two computers and the internet are required is not what makes a
software invention patentable.
41. In substance the claim relates to computer software running on
conventional computers connected by a conventional network. The
task the software performs moves data from one computer to another
using a conventional technique for carrying out that task, i.e. email. ...
The claim has been found to be novel and inventive by the examiner
and in that sense it makes a contribution of some kind to the art, but
the applicant has been unable to identify anything which this claim can
fairly be said to contribute which has a technical character. In my
judgment this claim is to unpatentable subject matter and is contrary
to s1(2) of the Act / Art 52 EPC.
Would the EPO have come to the same conclusion?
International Overview
“traffic-light” assessment of relative ease of obtaining protection
Software
disc claims
EPO
US
JP
Software
component
Signal
Business
method
Comparison with US: Bilski
Bilski explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy
market can protect (or hedge) against risk of price changes.
•“Machine or transformation test”: a process is only patentable if it is:
a) Tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or
b) It transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.
This does NOT define what is and what is not a patentable process
•Process: “a process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known
process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or material”
•Method: “a method of doing or conducting business”
Similar approach in EPO: a claim that encompasses all ways of
automating a novel and non-obvious business method might be
considered patentable in the US, but not in the EPO, even if the
business method itself was new and inventive.
Medical Method Exclusions
Art 53(c) EPC
Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and
diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this provision shall not
apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these
methods.
Problems arise for medical devices where the device is known, but the method is
novel – do not fall under the new products, substances or compositions exception.
G 1/04 – Prometheus in Europe?
... a diagnostic method practised on the human or animal body falls under the
prohibition of Article 52(4) EPC [if it] includes the features relating to:
(i) the diagnosis for curative purposes stricto sensu representing the deductive
medical or veterinary decision phase as a purely intellectual exercise,
(ii) the preceding steps which are constitutive for making that diagnosis, and
(iii) the specific interactions with the human or animal body which occur when
carrying those out among these preceding steps which are of a technical nature.
What is Patentable?
-
Medical devices
Methods that stop short of diagnosis
Cosmetic treatments and treatments for non-diseases
In vitro methods
Surgical methods performed on dead bodies (e.g. removal of organs)
First medical use – use of the compound in a medical method if no
previous medical use is known
Second medical use - “compound X for use in treatment of disease Y”
New administration regimen – e.g. a novel dosage regime
New mode of administration – e.g. subcutaneous vs. intramuscular or
potentially via a coated stent
New technical effect independently achieved - e.g. removal of dental
plaque vs. inhibition of tooth decay
But – we need basis in the original specification
Practical Advice for Drafting for UK / Europe
• Frame problem and technical solution in introduction
• Include drawing of a real-world apparatus in which the method can
be implemented
• Present a hardware implementation
• Describe use of the method in technical implementation
• Highlight technical advantages (e.g. Increased speed, efficiency,
reliability etc.)
• Tie method steps back to technical means
Incompatibilities with US practice may make parallel
applications filed on the same day useful.
Summary of Practical Considerations
Usually
considered
during
classification
Abstract – only to include
technical / hardware aspects
Introduction – only to include
technical / hardware aspects
Description
Hardware or pseudo-hardware
embodiments –
including detailed technical
description, where possible of new
physical combinations of hardware
or pseudo-hardware
Further embodiments – including
software and/or business method
embodiments
What is claimed is:
Main claims:
- Avoid all “business” language
- Claims in hardware or pseudohardware form if possible
- Solution (and preferably
problem) must be “technical”
Usually
considered
during
classification
Further claims:
- Software and/or business
method claims
Drawings – including
hardware or pseudo-hardware figures
up front, and software and/or business
method figures later
Usually
considered
during
classification
Life Sciences Issues
• Therapy and Diagnosis (cf. Prometheus)
• Surgery
• Patenting Genes (cf. Myriad)
• Stem Cells
• Plant IP
Exceptions to Patentability
Art 53 EPC
European patents shall not be granted in respect of:
a) Inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to “ordre
public” or morality; such exploitation shall not be deemed to be so contrary
merely because it is prohibited by law or regulation in some or all of the
Contracting states;
b) Plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the
production of plants of animals; this provision shall not apply to
microbiological processes or the products thereof;
c) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy
and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body; this
provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or
compositions, for use in any of these methods.
Life Sciences Issues
• Therapy and Diagnosis (cf. Prometheus)
–
Art 53(c)
• Surgery
– Art 53(c)
• Patenting Genes (cf. Myriad)
– Art 53(a), Art 52(2) (non-patentability of discoveries)
• Stem Cells
– Art 53(a)
• Plant IP
– Art 53(b)
Therapy, Surgery and Diagnosis
Article 53(c) EPC
Prometheus: What Prometheus Claimed
A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an
immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said
immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said
immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red
blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug
subsequently administered to said subject and
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108
red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug
subsequently administered to said subject.
US Supreme Court in Prometheus
“… the claims inform a relevant audience about
certain laws of nature; any additional steps consist of
well understood, routine, conventional activity… For
these reasons we believe that the steps are not
sufficient to transform unpatentable natural
correlations into patentable applications of those
regularities.”
What Prometheus Did not Claim (& Why?)
•
Prometheus could have claimed, but did not claim
A method of treating a ... disorder comprising optimizing therapeutic
efficacy for treatment of said disorder, by a method comprising:
(a) administering a drug to a subject
(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine
wherein the level less than indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug
subsequently administered and
wherein the level greater than indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug
subsequently administered …;
and subsequently administering to said subject an amount of said
drug based on said determination.
•
Why not?
– Divided infringement/single actor requirement whereas activity split between
test lab and Doctor (now questioned in McKesson/Akamai)
Issues for Prometheus’ Claims in Europe
• The EPC excludes from patentability
– Methods of treatment by therapy
– Methods of diagnosis
• But diagnostic methods only excluded when
practised on the human or animal body
– So in vitro diagnostic methods are straightforward
• And “second medical use” claims now offer a lot of
flexibility
“Second Medical Use” Claims in Europe
• EPC1973 – Swiss-style
Use of [Substance X] in the manufacture of a medicament for
the treatment of [Disease Y]
• EPC2000 – Compound for use
[Substance X] for use in the treatment of [Disease Y]
• G2/08 – Enlarged Board of Appeal confirms that
these formats apply to new treatments of the same
disease, not just wholly new indications – dosage
regimes, patient groups, modes of administration etc
Prometheus in Europe (1) ...
• EPC2000 medical use claim in light of G2/08
A drug for use in a method of treatment of … disorder, the method comprising
optimizing therapeutic efficacy of said drug by
(a) administering …
(b) determining …
wherein …
wherein …
and subsequently administering to said subject an amount of said drug based
on based on said determination.
• Contributory infringement by diagnostics lab
Prometheus in Europe (2) ...
• In vitro method claim
A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy …, comprising:
determining the level of 6-thioguanine in vitro in a sample from a subject
to whom a drug providing 6-thioguanine has been administered…
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine … indicates …
•
•
•
Clearly patent eligible under Art. 53 EPC
Would be directly infringed by the diagnostics lab
Maybe some questions over novelty, but in vitro method claims were
in fact granted by the EPO – EP1,115,403
Methods of Surgery
• What constitutes “a method of treatment of the
human or animal body by surgery”?
– Sometimes straightforward
– Other times not so straightforward: invasive but low-level
techniques (injection?), cosmetic procedures (tattooing, body
piercing?), animal experimentation (humane killing at end of
experiment) etc
“Surgery” clarified to an extent in Enlarged
Board Decision G1/07 (2010) and later cases
– A method is “surgical” if it comprises or encompasses an
invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention
on the human or animal body which requires professional
medical expertise and which entails a substantial health risk
even when carried out with the required professional care
and expertise
– But, the claims must still contain all the essential features of
the method to be clear and enabled, and removal must not
represent new matter – cannot indiscriminately remove steps
to avoid the exemption
• No requirement that method be curative
– Organ donation is “surgical” in nature and represents a
substantial health risk even though it is non-curative
• (Maybe) no requirement that the method be
performed by a doctor
– Variable case law on whether the fact that a procedure can
be delegated to paramedical personnel means no need for
professional medical expertise and hence non-surgical
– Look at the nature of the method more than who carries it
out: substantial health risk?
• Many cosmetic treatments not “surgical” even if they
are to a degree invasive
– No substantial health risk to safe routine techniques not considered
surgical in today’s technical reality (e.g. tattooing, body piercing)
Morality and “Ordre Public”
Article 53(a) EPC
(And Discoveries – Article 52(2) EPC)
Myriad – Patent-eligibility of isolated DNA
• Isolated DNA is a “product of nature” and hence
patent-ineligible
• cDNA is man-made and hence patent-eligible
• Two questions
– What is the corresponding position in Europe?
– How do we feel as foreign Applicants for US Patents?
Rule 29 EPC (cf. EU Biotech Directive), implements
Arts 53(a)/52(2) EPC (morality, discoveries)
(1) The human body, at the various stages of its formation and
development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including
the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute
patentable inventions.
(2) An element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by
means of a technical process, including the sequence or partial
sequence of a gene, may constitute a patentable invention, even if the
structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.
(3) The industrial application of a sequence or a partial sequence of a gene
must be disclosed in the patent application.
• Isolated DNA is patentable in Europe if it fulfils other
requirements (may not even have to recite “isolated”)
– How often does this happen nowadays ... ?
– Sometimes the right circumstances still arise but many
genes not now patentable even if narrowly claimed, for
novelty or obviousness reasons
– Meantime: claims in other product categories: expression
cassettes, vectors, cells, organisms, methods of production,
methods of use ... much as in US post-Myriad?
• Not being able to claim isolated DNA is not unfamiliar
– In some cases, similar outcomes for different reasons?
• BIO (US), 13 June 2013
“The United States is now the only developed country to take such a
restrictive view of patent eligibility ...”
• BIA (UK), 14 June 2013
“The
Supreme Court’s decision not to ban the patenting of cDNA
sequences will be a relief to many ... Although naturally occurring gene
sequences are no longer considered patentable, the trend for a number
of years now has been to move away from ... such claims ... The
practical ramifications of this decision are unlikely therefore to be as
far‐reaching as many reports in the popular press would suggest.”
Morality continued ... Human
Embryonic Stem Cells
Rule 28(c) EPC
Under Article 53(a), European patents shall not be
granted in respect of biotechnological inventions
which, in particular, concern the following:
(c) uses of human embryos for industrial or
commercial purposes
• Human Embryonic Stem Cells – restrictions on
patenting in Europe
– A claim to a product, which at the filing date could be exclusively
obtained by a method which necessarily involved the destruction of
human embryos, is excluded from patentability, even if said method
is not part of the claim (Enlarged Board Decision G2/06, 2008)
– The point in time at which such destruction takes place is irrelevant:
stem cell lines in cell banks required destruction at some time
– Development of “single-cell blastomere” technology helpful for
patenting: from a certain point forward, working with stem cells did
not absolutely require destruction of an embryo
– Non-embryonic/non-human stem cells raise no particular issues
Plant IP
Article 53(b) EPC
• Article 53(b) EPC excludes
– Plant and animal varieties
– Essentially biological processes for the production of plants
and animals (i.e. breeding methods)
• Case law (Novartis, G1/98) fairly liberal on plant
varieties (product claims)
–
–
–
–
Varieties per se excluded
(Protect via Plant Variety Rights, cf. PVP in USA)
Claims to plants that encompass varieties permitted
Consequence: few issues for transgenic plant inventions
• Case law (G2/07, G1/08 – “Broccoli” and “Tomatoes”)
not at all liberal on “essentially biological processes”
– Any process claim containing even one breeding step rejected
– Consequence: many issues for non-transgenic plant inventions
where such steps are essential
• Product-by-process claims
– Plant “obtainable by” breeding process XYZ; progeny of cross of
plant A with another plant ... ?
– Sometimes accepted now but new referrals (“Broccoli II”,
“Tomatoes II”) could impact this – developments awaited
Life Science Issues – Conclusions
• Multiple Patent-eligibility/exclusion issues apply in
Europe, each with its own body of law/practice
• Black-letter law (EPC) versus case law (USA)
• Some more restrictive than in USA; recently, others
more permissive following Supreme Court case law
Any Questions?
Ilya Kazi
Mathys & Squire LLP
[email protected]
Andrew Bentham
J A Kemp
[email protected]
For more information please contact:
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
95 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1DT
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7405 9450
Email: [email protected]
www.cipa.org.uk
IN ASSOCIATION WITH