6 July 2023
Authored and Edited by K. Victoria Barker, Ph.D.; Maeve O'Flynn
On the face of it, novelty should be straightforward to assess; either something was known on a particular date, or it wasn’t. However, this latest referral to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) concerns an interesting paradox whereby a chemical compound was simultaneously known and not known, depending on how the case law should be applied.
Article 54(2) EPC (novelty) defines the prior art as “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”. For chemical compounds, there is an additional caveat that a compound is only “made available to the public” if the skilled person could have been able to analyze and reproduce the product, following earlier EBA decision G 1/92[1].
The Board of Appeal dug into this issue when considering T0438/19[2], concerning solar panels. The case at issue, EP 2626911 owned by Mitsui Chemicals, was upheld as granted by the Opposition Division. The Appellant, Borealis AG, sought to overturn this decision on Appeal.
EP 2626911 relates to polymers for coating and protecting solar cells in solar panels. Claim 1 as granted relates to a material for encapsulating a solar cell, comprising a polymer having various properties.
The Appellant argued that polymer ENGAGE® 8400, described in Example 3 of D1, was the most appropriate starting point for assessing inventive step. The Appellant provided evidence to show that ENGAGE® 8400 had all of the properties of the polymers of claim 1 of the Patent, with the exception of the aluminum content. Altering the aluminum content was considered by the Board of Appeal to constitute an obvious modification.
The Patentee did not dispute that ENGAGE® 8400 was disclosed in leaflets prior to the effective date of the Patent, but argued that this polymer had not been “made available” to be public in the sense of G 1/92 and thus could not constitute prior art. In particular, the Patentee argued that it would be an undue burden for the skilled person to reverse engineer ENGAGE® 8400 and then to select the specific catalysts and reaction conditions necessary for manufacture of the product.
It is clear that both sides are heavily reliant on the definition of the skilled person to support their position, a view supported by G 1/92. G 1/92 ultimately created a “test” for assessing whether a commercially available product is prior art:
Therefore, where it is possible for the skilled person to analyze and reproduce the product without undue burden, then the product becomes state of the art. “Undue burden” has been interpreted as “using normal means of investigation” (see e.g., T969/90, T953/90 & T301/94).
Following the above “test” from G1/92, if it is not possible to analyze and reproduce a product without undue burden, then the product should not be part of the state of the art. However, in this referring case, the Board of Appeal identified divergent case law. Some decisions agreed that the product and its internal composition/structure should not be part of the prior art (see e.g., T946/04, T1666/16), while others found that only the internal composition of the product should be excluded from the prior art (see e.g., T370/02, T2045/09, T1833/14, and T0023/11).
The referring Board recognizes the semantics here, but notes the wider implications for inventive step, particularly in the referring case which hinges on this concept of “made available to the public”.
The Board also considered how strictly the requirement to “analyze” and “reproduce” the alleged prior art compound should be interpreted. Does this, for example, require a full analysis of all features of a product and reproduction of an identical copy? Again, the referring Board found divergent case law. Certain decisions suggest that exact replication is not required (see e.g., T952/92 & T1540/21), while others require duplication (see e.g., T977/93 & T1833/14).
This has led to the following questions being referred[3] to the EBA:
While the referring case is concerned with chemical subject-matter, like all EBA decisions, the outcome will have implications for all technical areas. If you have any questions on how this referral may impact your European applications and patents, please contact Maeve O’Flynn or Victoria Barker.
[1] https://new.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/g920001ep1.html
[2] https://new.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t190438ex1.html
[3] https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/communications/2023/20230629.html
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.