1 / 47

P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S

The EPO‘s approach in assessing inventive step for antibody claims Dr. Andreas Hübel. P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S. M I C H A L S K I H Ü T T E R M A N N P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S. Article 56 EPC – Inventive step

elmer
Download Presentation

P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The EPO‘s approach in assessing inventive step for antibody claims Dr. Andreas Hübel P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S M I C H A L S K IH Ü T T E R M A N N P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S

  2. Article 56 EPC – 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.

  3. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII 2. State oftheart The state of the art may reside in the relevant common general knowledge, which need not necessarily be in writing and needs substantiation only if challenged (see T 939/92).

  4. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • Problem-and-solution approach • In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages:

  5. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • Problem-and-solution approach • In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages: • determining the "closest prior art", 

  6. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • Problem-and-solution approach • In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages: • determining the "closest prior art",  • establishing the "objective technical problem" to be solved, and 

  7. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • Problem-and-solution approach • In the problem-and-solution approach, there are three main stages: • determining the "closest prior art",  • establishing the "objective technical problem" to be solved, and  • considering whether or not the claimed invention, • starting from the closest prior art and the objective technical problem, would have been obvious to the skilled person. 

  8. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII 5.1 Determination of the closest prior art The closest prior art is that which in one single reference discloses the combination of features which constitutes the most promising starting point for an obvious development leading to the invention. … it should be directed to a similar purpose or effect as the invention or at least belong to the same or a closely related technical field as the claimed invention. In practice, the closest prior art is generally that which corresponds to a similar use and requires the minimum of structural and functional modifications to arrive at the claimed invention

  9. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem • determining the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art in terms of features;

  10. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem • determining the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art in terms of features; • identifying the technical effect resulting from the distinguishing features;

  11. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem • determining the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art in terms of features; • identifying the technical effect resulting from the distinguishing features; • then formulating the technical problem.

  12. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII • 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem • determining the difference between the claimed invention and the closest prior art in terms of features; • identifying the technical effect resulting from the distinguishing features; • then formulating the technical problem. • The objective technical problem derived in this way may not be what the applicant presented as "the problem" in his application.

  13. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII 5.2 Formulation of the objective technical problem The expression "technical problem" does not necessarily imply that the technical solution is a technical improvement over the prior art. Thus the problem could be simply to seek an alternative to a known device or process which provides the same or similar effects or is more cost-effective.

  14. GuidelinesforExamination in the EPO – G VII 5.3 Could-would approach Is there is any teaching in the prior art as a whole that would (not simply could, but would) have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem, to modify or adapt the closest prior art while taking account of that teaching, thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves.

  15. Inventivestepforantibodyclaims How does the EPO applies its problem-solution approach to antibody claims ? ?

  16. Inventivestepforantibodyclaims How does the EPO applies its problem-solution approach to antibody claims ?

  17. Inventivestepforantibodyclaims How does the EPO applies its problem-solution approach to small molecules ?

  18. Inventivestepforsmallmolecules Compounds not structurally close to each other compound 1A compound 1B

  19. Inventivestepforsmallmolecules Compounds not structurally close to each other compound 1A compound 1B

  20. Inventivestepforsmallmolecules Compounds not structurally close to each other compound 1A compound 1B Compound 1B does not have to exhibit advantages or surprising effects beyond those exhibited by compound 1A for being considered as being based on an inventive step.

  21. Inventivenessofsmallmolecules Compounds structurally close to each other compound 2A compound 2B

  22. Inventivenessofsmallmolecules Compounds structurally close to each other compound 2A compound 2B

  23. Inventivenessofsmallmolecules Compounds structurally close to each other compound 2A compound 2B Compound 2B has to exhibit advantages or surprising effects beyond those exhibited by compound 2A for being considered as non-obvious.

  24. Inventivenessofantibodies How is the EPO’s assessment of inventive step for small molecules transferred to antibody claims ? www.protopedia.org

  25. Inventiveness of antibodies Structure of antibodies www.protopedia.org

  26. Inventiveness of antibodies Structure of antibodies

  27. Inventiveness of antibodies Structure of antibodies

  28. Inventiveness of antibodies Structure of antibodies

  29. Inventivenessofantibodies The vastmajorityofstructuralelementsarethe same in mostantibodies. CDR‘sconstitutethegistof a novelantibody, but constitute a smallportionoftheantibodystructure. Aminoacidsequencesofthe CDRs arenot predictable. Aminoacidsequenceof a single CDR isoftenknown.

  30. Inventivenessofantibodies Ifantigen A isnovel, then an antibodyagainstantigen A isusuallyconsideredtobe novel AND inventive, providedthatantigen A is well defined in theapplication.

  31. Inventivenessofantibodies • Prior Art: > monoclonalantibody (mAb) „X“, whichbindsprotein „A“ > methodforpreparation (immunisationprotocol, isolation) > functionality: neutralizingactivity > characterizedbytheaminoacidsequenceof ist VHand VL- domains • Claim: > monoclonal Ab „Y“ bindingprotein „A“, themABcomprisingthesix CDRs asbeingthoseof SEQ ID NO: 1 to 6. (methodofpreparationisthe same as in priorart, functionisthe same aspriorartmAb) • Novelty: > YES, due tostructuralcharacterizationofthesixCDRs • Inventive:> Sequenceofthesix CDRs obvious ? YES or NO ?

  32. Inventivenessofantibodies • Prior Art: > monoclonalantibody (mAb) „X“, whichbindsprotein „A“ > methodforpreparation (immunisationprotocol, isolation) > functionality: neutralizingactivity > characterizedbytheaminoacidsequenceof ist VHand VL- domains • Claim: > monoclonal Ab „Y“ bindingprotein „A“, themABcomprisingthesix CDRs asbeingthoseof SEQ ID NO: 1 to 6. (methodofpreparationisthe same as in priorart, functionisthe same aspriorartmAb) • Novelty: > YES, due tostructuralcharacterizationofthesixCDRs • Inventive:> Sequenceofthesix CDRs obvious ? YES ! pursuantto EPO

  33. Inventiveness of antibodies • In small molecules, the skilled artisan could envisage changes here and there, however he would not do so with an expectation to succeed • unless prior art guides him in relation with non-active parts of the molecule • which could be modified without consequences for the biological activity or • unless safe predictions can be made based on prior art structures. • In Ab molecules, nature does it four you => once you have a method to produce one type of antibody, the skilled artisan knows that by routine techniques he would succeed to produce other Abs with equivalent functional properties, albeit different structure.

  34. Inventivenessofantibodies Methodsofgeneratingantibodiesareknown.Köhler, G. & Milstein, C. (1975): Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. In: Nature. Bd. 256, S. 495–497. In 1979, hybridomatechnology was considered not beingroutine (T 349/91). Today, hybridomatechnologyandphagedisplayareconsideredtechnologiesthatare well mastered, notechnicalproblemsareexpected. A singledocumentdescribingthenewtechnologythoroughlyandrecitingpossibleusesandadvantagesissufficienttodeny an inventivestep.

  35. Inventivenessofantibodies A singledocumentdescribingthenewtechnologythoroughlyandrecitingpossibleusesandadvantagesissufficienttodeny an inventivestep. Hence, producingsingle-domainantibodies („nanobodies“) beimmunisationofllamasandgeneratingAbsbyhybridomasorgeneratingphagedisplaydoes not provide an inventivestepforsaidnanobodyifsaidnanobodydoes not have an unexpectedeffect.

  36. Inventiveness of antibodies As methods for generating antibodies are considered to be routine techniques today, the EPO deems that structure alone can not be the basis for acknowledging an inventive step, if the function of the novel antibody is the same as in the prior art antibody. The novel antibody has to have an unexpected technical effect for having an inventive step acknowledged by the EPO. e.g. antigen specificity, affinity, mode of action, immunogenicity, stability, neutralizing titer, epitope specificity, etc.

  37. Summary

  38. Summary If antigen A is novel, then an antibody against antigen A is usually considered to be novel AND inventive, provided that antigen A is well defined in the application.

  39. Summary If antigen A is novel, then an antibody against antigen A is usually considered to be novel AND inventive, provided that antigen A is well defined in the application. A generic antibody against a known target is not inventive.

  40. Summary If antigen A is novel, then an antibody against antigen A is usually considered to be novel AND inventive, provided that antigen A is well defined in the application. A generic antibody against a known target is not inventive. The provision of a novel antibody against a known antigen involves an inventive step only if the antibody shows unexpected properties or if it was unexpected that such an antibody could be produced at all.

  41. Questions to be discussed

  42. Questions to be discussed What is an unexpected property of a new antibody ?

  43. Questions to be discussed What is an unexpected property of a new antibody ? Is it really nature doing it for us ?

  44. Questions to be discussed What is an unexpected property of a new antibody ? Is it really nature doing it for us ? Is the basic nucleus of smalls molecule equivalent to the backbone or to the CDRs of Abs ?

  45. Questions to be discussed What is an unexpected property of a new antibody ? Is it really nature doing it for us ? Is the basic nucleus of smalls molecule equivalent to the backbone or to the CDRs of Abs ? Is it appropriate to consider routine techniques in assessing inventive step of a product defined by its structure ?

  46. Questions to be discussed What is an unexpected property of a new antibody ? Is it really nature doing it for us ? Is the basic nucleus of smalls molecule equivalent to the backbone or to the CDRs of Abs ? Is it appropriate to consider routine techniques in assessing inventive step of a product defined by its structure ? Is the unpredictability of CDR sequences sufficiently considered ?

  47. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner www.mhpatent.de

More Related