Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Startseite
  • Patentrecherche

    Patentwissen

    Unsere Patentdatenbanken und Recherchetools

    Zur Übersicht 

    • Übersicht
    • Technische Information
      • Übersicht
      • Espacenet - Patentsuche
      • Europäischer Publikationsserver
      • EP-Volltextrecherche
    • Rechtliche Information
      • Übersicht
      • Europäisches Patentregister
      • Europäisches Patentblatt
      • European Case Law Identifier Sitemap
      • Einwendungen Dritter
    • Geschäftsinformationen
      • Übersicht
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technologieanalyseberichte
    • Daten
      • Übersicht
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Massendatensätze
      • Web-Dienste
      • Datenbestände, Codes und Statistiken
    • Technologieplattformen
      • Übersicht
      • Kunststoffe im Wandel
      • Innovationen im Wassersektor
      • Innovationen im Weltraumsektor
      • Technologien zur Bekämpfung von Krebs
      • Technologien zur Brandbekämpfung
      • Saubere Energietechnologien
      • Kampf gegen Corona
    • Nützliche Informationsquellen
      • Übersicht
      • Zum ersten Mal hier? Was ist Patentinformation?
      • Patentinformation aus Asien
      • Patentinformationszentren (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Wirtschaft und Statistik
      • Patentinformationen rund um den einheitlichen Patentschutz
    Bild
    Plastics in Transition

    Technologieanalysebericht zur Plastikabfallwirtschaft

  • Anmelden eines Patents

    Anmelden eines Patents

    Praktische Informationen über Anmelde- und Erteilungsverfahren.

    Zur Übersicht 

    • Übersicht
    • Europäischer Weg
      • Übersicht
      • Leitfaden zum europäischen Patent
      • Einsprüche
      • Mündliche Verhandlung
      • Beschwerden
      • Einheitspatent & Einheitliches Patentgericht
      • Nationale Validierung
      • Antrag auf Erstreckung/Validierung
    • Internationaler Weg (PCT)
      • Übersicht
      • Euro-PCT-Leitfaden: PCT-Verfahren im EPA
      • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen des EPA
      • PCT-Bestimmungen und Informationsquellen
      • Erstreckungs-/Validierungsantrag
      • Programm für verstärkte Partnerschaft
      • Beschleunigung Ihrer PCT-Anmeldung
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Schulungen und Veranstaltungen
    • Nationale Anmeldungen
    • Zugelassenen Vertreter suchen
    • MyEPO Services
      • Übersicht
      • Unsere Dienste verstehen
      • Zugriff erhalten
      • Bei uns einreichen
      • Akten interaktiv bearbeiten
      • Verfügbarkeit der Online-Dienste
    • Formblätter
      • Übersicht
      • Prüfungsantrag
    • Gebühren
      • Übersicht
      • Europäische Gebühren (EPÜ)
      • Internationale Gebühren (PCT)
      • Einheitspatentgebühren (UP)
      • Gebührenzahlung und Rückerstattung
      • Warnung

    UP

    Erfahren Sie, wie das Einheitspatent Ihre IP-Strategie verbessern kann

  • Recht & Praxis

    Recht & Praxis

    Europäisches Patentrecht, Amtsblatt und andere Rechtstexte

    Zur Übersicht 

    • Übersicht
    • Rechtstexte
      • Übersicht
      • Europäisches Patentübereinkommen
      • Amtsblatt
      • Richtlinien
      • Erstreckungs-/ Validierungssyste
      • Londoner Übereinkommen
      • Nationales Recht zum EPÜ
      • Système du brevet unitaire
      • Nationale Maßnahmen zum Einheitspatent
    • Gerichtspraxis
      • Übersicht
      • Symposium europäischer Patentrichter
    • Nutzerbefragungen
      • Übersicht
      • Laufende Befragungen
      • Abgeschlossene Befragungen
    • Harmonisierung des materiellen Patentrechts
      • Übersicht
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Gruppe B+
    • Konvergenz der Verfahren
    • Optionen für zugelassene Vertreter
    Bild
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Informieren Sie sich über die wichtigsten Aspekte ausgewählter BK-Entscheidungen in unseren monatlichen „Abstracts of decisions“

  • Neues & Veranstaltungen

    Neues & Veranstaltungen

    Aktuelle Neuigkeiten, Podcasts und Veranstaltungen.

    Zur Übersicht 

     

    • Übersicht
    • News
    • Veranstaltungen
    • Europäischer Erfinderpreis
      • Übersicht
      • Die bedeutung von morgen
      • Über den Preis
      • Kategorien und Preise
      • Lernen Sie die Finalisten kennen
      • Nominierungen
      • European Inventor Network
      • Preisverleihung 2024
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Übersicht
      • Über den Preis
      • Nominierungen
      • Die jury
      • Die Welt, neu gedacht
    • Pressezentrum
      • Übersicht
      • Patent Index und Statistiken
      • Pressezentrum durchsuchen
      • Hintergrundinformation
      • Copyright
      • Pressekontakt
      • Rückruf Formular
      • Presseinfos per Mail
    • Innovation und Patente im Blickpunkt
      • Übersicht
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Forschungseinrichtungen
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Raumfahrt und Satelliten
      • Zukunft der Medizin
      • Werkstoffkunde
      • Mobile Kommunikation: Das große Geschäft mit kleinen Geräten
      • Biotechnologiepatente
      • Patentklassifikation
      • Digitale Technologien
      • Die Zukunft der Fertigung
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast "Talk innovation"

    Podcast

    Von der Idee zur Erfindung: unser Podcast informiert Sie topaktuell in Sachen Technik und IP

  • Lernen

    Lernen

    Europäische Patentakademie – unser Kursportal für Ihre Fortbildung

    Zur Übersicht 

    • Übersicht
    • Schulungsaktivitäten und Lernpfade
      • Übersicht
      • Schulungsaktivitäten
      • Lernpfade
    • EEP und EPVZ
      • Übersicht
      • EEP – Europäische Eignungsprüfung
      • EPVZ – Europäisches Patentverwaltungszertifikat
      • CSP – Programm zur Unterstützung von Bewerbern
    • Lernmaterial nach Interesse
      • Übersicht
      • Patenterteilung
      • Technologietransfer und -verbreitung
      • Durchsetzung
    • Lernmaterial nach Profil
      • Übersicht
      • Geschäftswelt und IP
      • EEP und EPVZ Bewerber
      • Justiz
      • Nationale Ämter und IP-Behörden
      • Patentanwaltskanzleien
      • Lehre und Forschung
    Bild
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Werfen Sie einen Blick auf das umfangreiche Lernangebot im Schulungskatalog der Europäischen Patentakademie

  • Über uns

    Über uns

    Erfahren Sie mehr über Tätigkeit, Werte, Geschichte und Vision des EPA

    Zur Übersicht 

    • Übersicht
    • Das EPA auf einen Blick
    • 50 Jahre Europäisches Patentübereinkommen
      • Übersicht
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kinderwettbewerb für kollektive Kunst
    • Rechtsgrundlagen und Mitgliedstaaten
      • Übersicht
      • Rechtsgrundlagen
      • Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Patentorganisation
      • Erstreckungsstaaten
      • Validierungsstaaten
    • Verwaltungsrat und nachgeordnete Organe
      • Übersicht
      • Kommuniqués
      • Kalender
      • Dokumente und Veröffentlichungen
      • Der Verwaltungsrat der Europäischen Patentorganisation
    • Unsere Grundsätze und Strategie
      • Übersicht
      • Auftrag, Vision und Werte
      • Strategischer Plan 2028
      • Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen Normalität
    • Führung und Management
      • Übersicht
      • Präsident António Campinos
      • Managementberatungsausschuss
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Übersicht
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Dienste & Aktivitäten
      • Übersicht
      • Unsere Dienste & Struktur
      • Qualität
      • Nutzerkonsultation
      • Europäische und internationale Zusammenarbeit
      • Europäische Patentakademie
      • Chefökonom
      • Ombudsstelle
      • Meldung von Fehlverhalten
    • Beobachtungsstelle für Patente und Technologie
      • Übersicht
      • Akteure im Innovationsbereich
      • Politisches Umfeld und Finanzierung
      • Tools
      • Über die Beobachtungsstelle
    • Beschaffung
      • Übersicht
      • Beschaffungsprognose
      • Das EPA als Geschäftspartner
      • Beschaffungsverfahren
      • Nachhaltiger Beschaffungsstandard
      • Registrierung zum eTendering und elektronische Signaturen
      • Beschaffungsportal
      • Rechnungsstellung
      • Allgemeine Bedingungen
      • Archivierte Ausschreibungen
    • Transparenzportal
      • Übersicht
      • Allgemein
      • Humankapital
      • Umweltkapital
      • Organisationskapital
      • Sozial- und Beziehungskapital
      • Wirtschaftskapital
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Übersicht
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Die Geschichte des EPA
      • Übersicht
      • 1970er-Jahre
      • 1980er-Jahre
      • 1990er-Jahre
      • 2000er-Jahre
      • 2010er-Jahre
      • 2020er Jahre
    • Die EPA Kunstsammlung
      • Übersicht
      • Die Sammlung
      • Let's talk about art
      • Künstler
      • Mediathek
      • What's on
      • Publikationen
      • Kontakt
      • Kulturraum A&T 5-10
      • "Lange Nacht"
    Bild
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Verfolgen Sie die neuesten Technologietrends mit unserem Patentindex

 
Website
cancel
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • Sind Patente Neuland für Sie?
  • Sind Patente Neuland für Sie?
    • Go back
    • Patente für Ihr Unternehmen?
    • Warum ein Patent?
    • Was ist Ihre zündende Idee?
    • Sind Sie bereit?
    • Darum geht es
    • Der Weg zum Patent
    • Ist es patentierbar?
    • Ist Ihnen jemand zuvorgekommen?
    • Patentquiz
    • Video zum Einheitspatent
  • Patentrecherche
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Technische Information
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Espacenet - Patentsuche
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Datenbanken der nationalen Ämter
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Versionshinweise
      • Europäischer Publikationsserver
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Versionshinweise
        • Konkordanzliste für Euro-PCT-Anmeldungen
        • EP-Normdatei
        • Hilfe
      • EP-Volltextrecherche
    • Rechtliche Information
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Europäisches Patentregister
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Versionshinweise: Archiv
        • Dokumentation zu Register
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Datenverfügbarkeit für Deep Links
          • Vereinigtes Register
          • Ereignisse im Register
      • Europäisches Patentblatt
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Patentblatt herunterladen
        • Recherche im Europäischen Patentblatt
        • Hilfe
      • European Case Law Identifier Sitemap
      • Einwendungen Dritter
    • Geschäftsinformationen
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Versionshinweise
      • Technologieanalyseberichte
    • Daten
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Massendatensätze
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Manuals
        • Sequenzprotokolle
        • Nationale Volltextdaten
        • Daten des Europäischen Patentregisters
        • Weltweite bibliografische Daten des EPA (DOCDB)
        • EP-Volltextdaten
        • Weltweite Rechtsereignisdaten des EPA (INPADOC)
        • Bibliografische Daten von EP-Dokumenten (EBD)
        • Entscheidungen der Beschwerdekammern des EPA
      • Web-Dienste
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Europäischer Publikationsserver (Web-Dienst)
      • Datenbestände, Codes und Statistiken
        • Go back
        • Wöchentliche Aktualisierungen
        • Regelmäßige Aktualisierungen
    • Technologieplattformen
      • Go back
      • Kunststoffe im Wandel
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Verwertung von Plastikabfällen
        • Recycling von Plastikabfällen
        • Alternative Kunststoffe
      • Übersicht
      • Innovative Wassertechnologien
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Sauberes Wasser
        • Schutz vor Wasser
      • Innovationen im Weltraumsektor
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Kosmonautik
        • Weltraumbeobachtung
      • Technologien zur Bekämpfung von Krebs
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Prävention und Früherkennung
        • Diagnostik
        • Therapien
        • Wohlergehen und Nachsorge
      • Technologien zur Brandbekämpfung
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Branderkennung und -verhütung
        • Feuerlöschen
        • Schutzausrüstung
        • Technologien für die Sanierung nach Bränden
      • Saubere Energietechnologien
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Erneuerbare Energien
        • CO2-intensive Industrien
        • Energiespeicherung und andere Enabling-Technologien
      • Kampf gegen Corona
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Impfstoffe und Therapeutika
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Impfstoffe
          • Übersicht über Therapieansätze für COVID-19
          • Kandidaten für antivirale Therapeutika
          • Nukleinsäuren zur Behandlung von Coronavirus-Infektionen
        • Diagnose und Analyse
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Protein-und Nukleinsäure-Nachweis
          • Analyseprotokolle
        • Informatik
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Bioinformatik
          • Medizinische Informatik
        • Technologien für die neue Normalität
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Geräte, Materialien und Ausrüstung
          • Verfahren, Maßnahmen und Aktivitäten
          • Digitale Technologien
        • Erfinderinnen und Erfinder gegen das Coronavirus
    • Nützliche Informationsquellen
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Zum ersten Mal hier? Was ist Patentinformation?
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Grundlegende Definitionen
        • Patentklassifikation
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Gemeinsame Patentklassifikation
        • Patentfamilien
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Einfache DOCDB Patentfamilie
          • Erweiterte INPADOC Patentfamilie
        • Daten zu Rechtsstandsereignissen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • INPADOC-Klassifikationssystem
      • Patentinformation aus Asien
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinesisch-Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Indien (IN)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russische Föderation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patentinformationszentren (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Wirtschaft und Statistik
      • Patentinformationen rund um den einheitlichen Patentschutz
  • Anmelden eines Patents
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Europäischer Weg
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Leitfaden zum europäischen Patent
      • Einsprüche
      • Mündliche Verhandlung
        • Go back
        • Kalender der mündlichen Verhandlungen
          • Go back
          • Kalender der mündlichen Verhandlungen
          • Technische Richtlinien
          • Zugang für die Öffentlichkeit zum Beschwerdeverfahren
          • Zugang für die Öffentlichkeit zum Einspruchsverfahren
      • Beschwerden
      • Einheitspatent & Einheitliches Patentgericht
        • Go back
        • Einheitspatent
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Rechtlicher Rahmen
          • Wesentliche Merkmale
          • Beantragung eines Einheitspatents
          • Kosten eines Einheitspatents
          • Übersetzungsregelungen und Kompensationssystem
          • Starttermin
          • Introductory brochures
        • Übersicht
        • Einheitliches Patentgericht
      • Nationale Validierung
      • Erstreckungs- /Validierungsantrag
    • Internationaler Weg
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Euro-PCT-Leitfaden
      • Eintritt in die europäische Phase
      • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen
      • PCT-Bestimmungen und Informationsquellen
      • Erstreckungs-/Validierungsantrag
      • Programm für verstärkte Partnerschaft
      • Beschleunigung Ihrer PCT-Anmeldung
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Programm "Patent Prosecution Highway" (PPH) - Übersicht
      • PCT: Schulungen und Veranstaltungen
    • Nationaler Weg
    • MyEPO Services
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Unsere Dienste verstehen
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Versionshinweise
      • Zugriff erhalten
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Versionshinweise
      • Bei uns einreichen
        • Go back
        • Bei uns einreichen
        • Wenn unsere Dienste für die Online-Einreichung ausfallen
        • Versionshinweise
      • Akten interaktiv bearbeiten
        • Go back
        • Versionshinweise
      • Verfügbarkeit der Online-Dienste
    • Gebühren
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Europäische Gebühren (EPÜ)
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen
      • Internationale Gebühren (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Ermäßigung der Gebühren
        • Gebühren für internationale Anmeldungen
        • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen
        • Übersicht
      • Einheitspatentgebühren (UP)
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen
      • Gebührenzahlung und Rückerstattung
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Zahlungsarten
        • Erste Schritte
        • FAQs und sonstige Anleitungen
        • Technische Informationen für Sammelzahlungen
        • Beschlüsse und Mitteilungen
        • Versionshinweise
      • Warnung
    • Formblätter
      • Go back
      • Prüfungsantrag
      • Übersicht
    • Zugelassenen Vertreter suchen
  • Recht & Praxis
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Rechtstexte
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Europäisches Patentübereinkommen
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Archiv
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Dokumentation zur EPÜ-Revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Übersicht
            • Diplomatische Konferenz für die Revision des EPÜ
            • "Travaux préparatoires" (Vorarbeiten)
            • Neufassung
            • Übergangsbestimmungen
            • Ausführungsordnung zum EPÜ 2000
            • Gebührenordnung
            • Ratifikationen und Beitritte
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPÜ 1973
      • Amtsblatt
      • Richtlinien
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • EPÜ Richtlinien
        • PCT-EPA Richtlinien
        • Richtlinien für das Einheitspatent
        • Überarbeitung der Richtlinien
        • Ergebnisse der Konsultation
        • Zusammenfassung der Nutzerbeiträge
        • Archiv
      • Erstreckungs-/Validierungssystem
      • Londoner Übereinkommen
      • Nationales Recht zum EPÜ
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Archiv
      • Einheitspatentsystem
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • Nationale Maßnahmen zum Einheitspatent
    • Gerichtspraxis
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Symposium europäischer Patentrichter
    • Nutzerbefragungen
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Laufende Befragungen
      • Abgeschlossene Befragungen
    • Harmonisierung des materiellen Patentrechts
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Gruppe B+
    • Konvergenz der Verfahren
    • Optionen für zugelassene Vertreter
  • Neues & Veranstaltungen
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • News
    • Veranstaltungen
    • Europäischer Erfinderpreis
      • Go back
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • Übersicht
      • Über den Preis
      • Kategorien und Preise
      • Lernen Sie die Erfinder kennen
      • Nominierungen
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • Preisverleihung 2024
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Über den Preis
      • Nominierungen
      • Die Jury
      • Die Welt, neu gedacht
      • Preisverleihung 2025
    • Pressezentrum
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Patent Index und Statistiken
      • Pressezentrum durchsuchen
      • Hintergrundinformation
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Europäisches Patentamt
        • Fragen und Antworten zu Patenten im Zusammenhang mit dem Coronavirus
        • Fragen und Antworten zu Pflanzenpatenten
      • Copyright
      • Pressekontakt
      • Rückruf Formular
      • Presseinfos per Mail
    • Im Blickpunkt
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Wasserbezogene Technologien
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Übersicht
        • CodeFest 2024 zu generativer KI
        • Codefest 2023 zu grünen Kunststoffen
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Forschungseinrichtungen
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Raumfahrt und Satelliten
        • Go back
        • Weltraumtechnologie und Patente
        • Übersicht
      • Gesundheit
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Medizintechnik und Krebs
        • Personalised medicine
      • Werkstoffkunde
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Nanotechnologie
      • Mobile Kommunikation
      • Biotechnologie
        • Go back
        • Rot, weiß oder grün
        • Übersicht
        • Die Rolle des EPA
        • Was ist patentierbar?
        • Biotechnologische Erfindungen und ihre Erfinder
      • Patentklassifikation
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digitale Technologien
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Über IKT
        • Hardware und Software
        • Künstliche Intelligenz
        • Vierte Industrielle Revolution
      • Additive Fertigung
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Die additive Fertigung
        • Innovation durch AM
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Lernen
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Schulungsaktivitäten und Lernpfade
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Schulungsaktivitäten: Arten und Formate
      • Lernpfade
    • EEP und EPVZ
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • EEP – Europäische Eignungsprüfung
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Aufgabe F
          • Aufgabe A
          • Aufgabe B
          • Aufgabe C
          • Aufgabe D
          • Vorprüfung
        • Erfolgreiche Bewerber
        • Archiv
      • EPVZ – Europäisches Patentverwaltungszertifikat
      • CSP – Programm zur Unterstützung von Bewerbern
    • Angebot für bestimmte Interessengebiete
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Patenterteilung
      • Technologietransfer und -verbreitung
      • Patentdurchsetzung und Streitregelung
    • Angebot für bestimmte Zielgruppen
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Geschäftswelt und IP
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Fallstudien zum Technologietransfer
          • Fallstudien zu wachstumsstarken Technologien
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EEP und EPVZ Bewerber
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Denkaufgaben zu Aufgabe F
        • Tägliche Fragen zur Aufgabe D
        • Europäische Eignungsprüfung - Leitfaden zur Vorbereitung
        • EPVZ
      • Richter, Anwälte und Staatsanwälte
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • Die Zuständigkeit europäischer Gerichte bei Patentstreitigkeiten
      • Nationale Ämter und IP-Behörden
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Lernpfad für Patentprüfer der nationalen Ämter
        • Lernpfad für Formalsachbearbeiter und Paralegals
      • Patentanwaltskanzleien
      • Hochschulen, Forschungseinrichtungen und Technologietransferstellen
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Modularer IP-Ausbildungsrahmen (MIPEF)
        • Programm "Pan-European-Seal für junge Fachkräfte"
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Für Studierende
          • Für Hochschulen
            • Go back
            • Übersicht
            • IP-Schulungsressourcen
            • Hochschulmitgliedschaften
          • Unsere jungen Fachkräfte
          • Beruflicher Entwicklungsplan
        • Akademisches Forschungsprogramm (ARP)
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Abgeschlossene Forschungsprojekte
          • Laufende Forschungsprojekte
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Download modules
        • Handbuch für die Gestaltung von IP-Kursen
        • PATLIB Wissenstransfer nach Afrika
          • Go back
          • Die PATLIB-Initiative "Wissenstransfer nach Afrika" (KT2A)
          • KT2A-Kernaktivitäten
          • Erfolgsgeschichte einer KT2A-Partnerschaft: PATLIB Birmingham und Malawi University of Science and Technology
  • Über uns
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Das EPA auf einen Blick
    • 50 Jahre EPÜ
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Übersicht
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kinderwettbewerb für kollektive Kunst
    • Rechtsgrundlagen und Mitgliedstaaten
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Rechtsgrundlagen
      • Mitgliedstaaten
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Mitgliedstaaten sortiert nach Beitrittsdatum
      • Erstreckungsstaaten
      • Validierungsstaaten
    • Verwaltungsrat und nachgeordnete Organe
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Kommuniqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Übersicht
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Kalender
      • Dokumente und Veröffentlichungen
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Dokumente des Engeren Ausschusses
      • Verwaltungsrat
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Zusammensetzung
        • Vertreter
        • Geschäftsordnung
        • Kollegium der Rechnungsprüfer
        • Sekretariat
        • Nachgeordnete Organe
    • Grundsätze
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Auftrag, Vision und Werte
      • Strategieplan 2028
        • Go back
        • Treiber 1: Personal
        • Treiber 2: Technologien
        • Treiber 3: Qualitativ hochwertige Produkte und Dienstleistungen
        • Treiber 4: Partnerschaften
        • Treiber 5: Finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit
      • Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen Normalität
      • Datenschutzerklärung
    • Führung und Management
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Über den Präsidenten
      • Managementberatungsausschuss
    • Nachhaltigkeit beim EPA
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Umwelt
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspirierende Erfindungen für die Umwelt
      • Soziales
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspirierende soziale Erfindungen
      • Governance und finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit
    • Beschaffung
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Beschaffungsprognose
      • Das EPA als Geschäftspartner
      • Beschaffungsverfahren
      • Veröffentlichungen des Dynamischen Beschaffungssystems
      • Nachhaltiger Beschaffungsstandard
      • Über eTendering
      • Rechnungsstellung
      • Beschaffungsportal
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Elektronische Signatur von Verträgen
      • Allgemeine Bedingungen
      • Archivierte Ausschreibungen
    • Dienste & Aktivitäten
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Unsere Dienste & Struktur
      • Qualität
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Grundlagen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Europäisches Patentübereinkommen
          • Richtlinien für die Prüfung
          • Unsere Bediensteten
        • Qualität ermöglichen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Stand der Technik
          • Klassifikationssystem
          • Tools
          • Qualitätssicherung
        • Produkte & Dienstleistungen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Recherche
          • Prüfung
          • Einspruch
          • Fortlaufende Verbesserung
        • Qualität durch Netzwerke
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Nutzerengagement
          • Zusammenarbeit
          • Befragung zur Nutzerzufriedenheit
          • Stakeholder-Qualitätssicherungspanels
        • Charta für Patentqualität
        • Qualitätsaktionsplan
        • Qualitäts-Dashboard
        • Statistik
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Recherche
          • Prüfung
          • Einspruch
        • Integriertes Management beim EPA
      • Charta unserer Kundenbetreuung
      • Nutzerkonsultation
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Ständiger Beratender Ausschuss beim EPA
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Ziele
          • Der SACEPO und seine Arbeitsgruppen
          • Sitzungen
          • Bereich für Delegierte
        • Befragungen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Methodik
          • Recherche
          • Sachprüfung, abschließende Aktionen und Veröffentlichung
          • Einspruch
          • Formalprüfung
          • Kundenbetreuung
          • Einreichung
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • EPA-Website
          • Archiv
      • Europäische und internationale Zusammenarbeit
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
        • Bilaterale Zusammenarbeit mit Nichtmitgliedstaaten
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Validierungssystem
          • Programm für verstärkte Partnerschaft
        • Internationale Organisationen, Trilaterale und IP5
        • Zusammenarbeit mit internationalen Organisationen außerhalb des IP-Systems
      • Europäische Patentakademie
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Partner
      • Chefökonom
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Wirtschaftliche Studien
      • Ombudsstelle
      • Meldung von Fehlverhalten
    • Beobachtungsstelle für Patente und Technologie
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Innovation gegen Krebs
      • Akteure im Innovationsbereich
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Start-ups und KMU
      • Politisches Umfeld und Finanzierung
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Programm zur Innovationsfinanzierung
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Unsere Studien zur Innovationsfinanzierung
          • EPA-Initiativen für Patentanmelder/innen
          • Programm zur Innovationsfinanzierung
        • Patente und Normen
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Publikationen
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • Über die Beobachtungsstelle
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Arbeitsplan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Allgemein
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Übersicht
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Humankapital
      • Umweltkapital
      • Organisationskapital
      • Sozial- und Beziehungskapital
      • Wirtschaftskapital
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Geschichte
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • 1970er-Jahre
      • 1980er-Jahre
      • 1990er-Jahre
      • 2000er-Jahre
      • 2010er-Jahre
      • 2020er Jahre
    • Kunstsammlung
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Die Sammlung
      • Let's talk about art
      • Künstler
      • Mediathek
      • What's on
      • Publikationen
      • Kontakt
      • Kulturraum A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Frühere Ausstellungen
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Lange Nacht"
  • Beschwerdekammern
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Entscheidungen der Beschwerdekammern
      • Go back
      • Neue Entscheidungen
      • Übersicht
      • Ausgewählte Entscheidungen
    • Mitteilungen der Beschwerdekammern
    • Verfahren
    • Mündliche Verhandlungen
    • Über die Beschwerdekammern
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Präsident der Beschwerdekammern
      • Große Beschwerdekammer
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technische Beschwerdekammern
      • Juristische Beschwerdekammer
      • Beschwerdekammer in Disziplinarangelegenheiten
      • Präsidium
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
    • Verhaltenskodex
    • Geschäftsverteilungsplan
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archiv
    • Jährliche Liste der Verfahren
    • Mitteilungen
    • Jahresberichte
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
    • Veröffentlichungen
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Archiv
  • Service & Unterstützung
    • Go back
    • Übersicht
    • Aktualisierungen der Website
    • Verfügbarkeit der Online-Dienste
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
    • Veröffentlichungen
    • Bestellung
      • Go back
      • Patentwissen – Produkte und Dienste
      • Übersicht
      • Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen
        • Go back
        • Übersicht
        • Patentinformationsprodukte
        • Massendatensätze
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Leitfaden zur fairen Nutzung
    • Verfahrensbezogene Mitteilungen
    • Nützliche Links
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Patentämter der Mitgliedstaaten
      • Weitere Patentämter
      • Verzeichnisse von Patentvertretern
      • Patentdatenbanken, Register und Patentblätter
      • Haftungsausschluss
    • Aboverwaltung
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Anmelden
      • Einstellungen verwalten
      • Abmelden
    • Veröffentlichungen
      • Go back
      • Übersicht
      • Möglichkeiten der Einreichung
      • Standorte
    • Offizielle Feiertage
    • Glossar
    • RSS-Feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Übersicht
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Startseite
  2. Node
  3. T 0276/06 (Intravascular stents/MEDTRONIC) 25-09-2008
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0276/06 (Intravascular stents/MEDTRONIC) 25-09-2008

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T027606.20080925
Datum der Entscheidung:
25 September 2008
Aktenzeichen
T 0276/06
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
94302807.6
IPC-Klasse
A61L 31/00
Verfahrenssprache
EN
Verteilung
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download und weitere Informationen:

Entscheidung in EN 50.96 KB
Alle Dokumente zum Beschwerdeverfahren finden Sie im Europäisches Patentregister
Bibliografische Daten verfügbar in:
EN
Fassungen
Nicht veröffentlicht
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung

Intravascular stents

Name des Anmelders
MEDTRONIC, INC.
Name des Einsprechenden
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
Kammer
3.3.10
Leitsatz
-
Relevante Rechtsnormen
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Schlagwörter
Inventive step (yes) - improvement - no bonus effect - not obvious
Orientierungssatz
-
Angeführte Entscheidungen
G 0001/93
T 0020/81
T 0184/82
T 0197/86
T 0564/89
T 0270/90
T 0939/92
T 0039/93
T 0355/97
T 0284/98
T 0836/02
T 0176/04
Anführungen in anderen Entscheidungen
T 0969/19

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The Appellant (Opponent) lodged an appeal on 28 February 2006 against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division, posted on 27 December 2005, that the European patent No. 623 354 in the form as amended during opposition proceedings according to the then pending main request met the requirements of the EPC.

II. Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent by the Appellant requesting revocation of the patent in suit in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC).

Inter alia the following documents were submitted in opposition proceedings:

(1) US-A-5019096

(9) WO-A-91 12779 and

(32) US-A-4800882.

III. The Opposition Division held that the subject-matter of the amended claims neither extended beyond the content of the application as filed nor that the amended claims extended the protection conferred by the granted patent and that the documents cited neither anticipated nor rendered obvious the claimed subject-matter.

The Opposition Division found that the amended claims were admissible with respect to Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, the features "balloon expandable", "spraying" and "metal surface" having a support in the application as filed. The subject-matter of claim 1 was novel, since no document disclosed the features of claim 1 in combination. Furthermore document (1) did not disclose balloon-expandable arterial grafts. For the assessment of inventive step, document (9) was considered to be the closest prior art. The technical problem was to provide a coating which remained attached to the stent when the stent expanded. Document (1) treated a method of coating by spraying as being equivalent to that of dipping. The skilled person would not combine document (9) and document (1) since spraying was only one alternative from the different methods of coating and since document (1) did not refer to a stent. The effect obtained by the distinguishing feature of "multiple coating by spraying" was the prevention of detachment of the coating and was shown by the comparison of example 5 with examples 3 or 4 of the patent in suit.

IV. During the oral proceedings held on 25 September 2008 before the Board, the Respondent (Proprietor of the patent) withdrew all its former objections with respect to the admissibility of the Appellant's late filed documents and evidences. Furthermore, it defended the maintenance of the patent in suit solely on the basis of claims 1 to 11 of the main request filed on 24 November 2006, on which the decision of the Opposition Division was based, i.e. claim 12 of this set of claims being removed and auxiliary requests 1 to 6 filed on 24 November 2006 all being withdrawn.

Claim 1 of the main request read as follows:

"1. A method of making an intravascular stent comprising the steps of:

(a) providing a generally cylindrical, balloon-expandable stent body having a metal surface;

(b) spraying onto the stent body in a plurality of application and drying steps a solution which comprises a solvent, a polymer dissolved in the solvent and a therapeutic substance dispersed in the solvent; and

(c) evaporating said solvent."

V. The Appellant raised no objections under Article 123(2) EPC with respect to the amendments made in the claims. However, it submitted that Article 123(2) EPC was infringed with respect to the formulation of the technical problem submitting that any amendment of the technical problem had to be in line with that Article relying inter alia on point 16 of the reasons of the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 1/93 (OJ EPO 1994, 541).

The patent was amended during the opposition proceedings in such a way as to add new subject-matter, contrary to the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, by virtue of the fresh effect which suggested that coating the intravascular stent by spraying per se provided advantages which were not obtainable by other coating methods. There was no disclosure in the application as filed of a causal link between the spraying and the attachment of the coating onto the stent. The application as filed disclosed that all coating methods were equivalent so that there was no right for the Respondent to base an inventive step on the selection of a specific coating method.

Document (9) was the closest prior art document, which disclosed all the features of the stent obtained by the method of claim 1 of the patent in suit, save its method of preparation.

The technical problem, put forward by the Respondent in view of document (9), of providing a simplified process of making a coated balloon expandable intravascular stent having an improved attachment of the coating during its expansion and an improved control rate of drug delivery was not solved by the claimed subject-matter.

The test report of 24 November 2006 filed by the Respondent did not represent a fair comparison. The coating solution was not optimized for a method of coating by dipping due to an unsuitable viscosity value, so that the amount of coating onto the stents was much higher for the dipped coated stent than for the sprayed coated stent. The detachment observed during expansion for the dipped coated stent was due to these specific unsuitable conditions used in the method of preparation which led to pulling due to the much higher coating weight. On the contrary, the Appellant's comparative tests filed on 22 August 2008 showed that there was no difference of detachment of the coating after expansion between a spray-coated stent and a dip-coated stent having the same coating weight.

Furthermore, it was not clear what was meant by the expression "stents were dipped rapidly" used in the Respondent's test report. Since the amount of the coating could vary according to the dipping time, it was not possible accurately to reproduce the experiment.

Even if an improvement in relation to the coating adhesion was accepted, it was not credible that it would apply across the whole scope of the claims. The comparative test of the Respondent was carried out with fine spraying, with only one specific drug, ratio drug/polymer or type of balloon-expandable stent, and with only two polymers, solvents and concentrations. Hence, there was no proof that the alleged improvement was achieved with any spraying, drug, solvent, polymer, ratio drug/polymer, concentration or type of balloon-expandable stent. The passage on page 3, lines 6 to 9 of the patent in suit indicated a relationship between the adhesion of the coating and the nature of the polymer in the coating solution. A solvent evaporating too quickly or too slowly might not be appropriate. Since the detachment of the coating was due to the pooling and that the pooling was due to a particular form of the stent, e.g. presence of struts or sharp curves, it was to be expected that certain stents without those particular features, for instance coil stents such as those disclosed in document (9) or document (32) could be dip-coated without any pooling, so that no detachment would occur during expansion, implying no improvement of the spraying- versus the dipping-coating method.

Furthermore, the claimed subject-matter was not inventive in view of the combination of document (9) with document (1).

Document (1) taught the solution proposed as such. There were only very few methods of coating described in that document. Accordingly the skilled person following the teaching in document (1) would automatically and inevitably arrive at the proposed solution. The fact that this coating method provided an enhancement of the coating adhesion was merely a bonus effect, which according to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal could not contribute to an inventive step.

VI. The Respondent indicated that claim 1 was based on the combination of original claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, and on page 5, line 3 of the application as filed where the stent was specified to be of the balloon-expandable type.

The Respondent concurred with the Appellant that document (9) was the closest prior art. The coated stents were, however, disclosed in that document as being prepared by assembling coated filaments.

In view of document (9), the technical problem underlying the patent in suit consisted in providing a simplified process of making a coated balloon expandable intravascular stent having an improved attachment of the coating during stent expansion and an improved control over the rate of drug delivery.

It was well-established that the problem/solution approach to the assessment of inventive step often required reformulation of the problem to be solved once the closest prior art document had been identified. Furthermore, this technical problem was clearly foreshadowed in paragraph [0006] on page 2, lines 37 to 39 of the patent in suit, corresponding to the bottom of page 2 of the application as filed, where the problem of keeping an active substance on the stent during expansion of the stent until it made contact with the blood vessel wall was addressed. It was also disclosed on the top of page 4 of the patent in suit that spraying provided a coating, which was furthermore improved by multiple applications, with a greater uniformity and control over the amount of the therapeutic substance.

The comparative test data (Annex A of the letter of 24 November 2006) showed that spraying in multiple application steps, a solution as defined in claim 1 of the patent in suit, rather than dipping it, provided a uniform drug-eluting coating that remained attached to the stent after expansion. The images of the coated stents clearly showed that coatings produced by spraying were more uniform over the stent surface than those produced by dipping. The coating was even and adhered to the stent struts on spray coated stents whereas the coating was pulled away or missing from dip coated stent struts. The improvement of the coating attachment was independent of the nature and concentration of the polymer, since it was obtained with formulations having different polymers in different amounts. Contrary to the Appellant's submission, though the values were not provided in this comparative test, the dip-coated and spray-coated stents had roughly the same thickness.

The comparative tests provided by the Appellant with letter of 22 August 2008 were not pertinent since the method of dipping used in this test did not reflect the prior art method. It comprised a step of high speed spinning which was not disclosed in document (1) and led to stents having a very low coating weight of about 60 µg as opposed to the coating weights of 600 to 1500 µg obtained according to the claimed method in examples 6 and 7 of the patent in suit.

None of the prior art documents taught the skilled person that spraying the coating solution instead of dipping it would yield a coating that remains better attached to the stent surface on expansion. There was no reason to choose among the methods of coating a medical device disclosed in document (1) to coat an intravascular stent by a method comprising spraying in multiple steps. On the contrary, document (1) taught that grafts, the sole medical device disclosed in that document like a stent, should be coated by agitation and/or vacuum suction in a single step dipping process leading the skilled man away from the claimed process.

VII. The Appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked.

The Respondent requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained upon the basis of claims 1 to 11 of claims 1 to 12 of the main request filed on 24 November 2006.

VIII. At the end of the oral proceedings, the decision of the Board was announced.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Amendments

Claim 1 is based on the combination of original claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, and on page 5, line 3 of the application as filed where the (expandable) stent according to step (a) is specified to be of the balloon-expandable type. These amendments restrict the protection conferred. Therefore, there are no objections to the amendments made in present claim 1, which finding was not contested by the Appellant. Furthermore, dependant claims 2 to 11 are backed up by original claims 7 to 16 respectively.

The requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC are thus satisfied.

3. Novelty

In the opposition proceedings the Opposition Division found the subject-matter of the patent in suit to be novel. The Appellant did not raise any objections in the appeal proceedings to the novelty of the claimed process. The Board on its own does not see any reason to take a different view, and thus the claims are considered to be novel.

4. Inventive step

According to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal it is necessary, in order to assess inventive step, to establish the closest state of the art, to determine in the light thereof the technical problem which the invention addresses and successfully solves, and to examine the obviousness of the claimed solution to this problem in view of the state of the art. This "problem-solution approach" ensures that inventive step is assessed on an objective basis and avoids an ex post facto analysis.

4.1 Closest prior art

The Board considers, in agreement with the Opposition Division and the Parties, that document (9) represents the closest state of the art, and, hence, takes it as the starting point in the assessment of inventive step.

4.1.1 Document (9) discloses a cylindrical, balloon-expandable, intravascular coated metallic stent, the coating being formed from a polymer into which a drug which limits acute or chronic closure (restenosis) is compounded (claim 1, page 10, lines 32 to 36, figure 2). The coating can also be made of at least two separate layers, each of said layers including a therapeutic compound (claim 2).

Document (9) thus discloses all the features of the stent which is prepared by the method of claim 1 of the patent in suit, but does not disclose its method of preparation.

4.1.2 The Respondent argued that the stents of document (9), including the balloon-expendable stent (20) of figure 2, are disclosed as being preparing by assembling coated filaments.

However the passages of document (9) relating to that method, i.e. page 10, lines 22 to 27 and page 11, lines 4 to page 12, line 7, exclusively refer to the preparation of the self-expandable stent (10) as depicted in figure 1, but not to a balloon-expandable stent such as depicted in fig. 2. Accordingly, the Respondent's arguments with respect to the disclosure of a method of preparation in document (9) are solely valid for the self expandable stent 10 of figure 1 and do not apply to the balloon-expandable stents.

Hence, the Respondent's interpretation of that document as disclosing a method for the preparation of balloon expandable stents by first coating single wires and then forming these into a stent is not supported by the facts. Thus document (9) does not disclose any method of preparation of balloon-expandable stents.

4.2 Technical problem underlying the patent in suit

In view of document (9), the Respondent submitted during the oral proceedings that the technical problem underlying the patent in suit consisted in providing a simplified process of making a coated balloon expandable intravascular stent having an improved attachment of the coating during its expansion and an improved control rate of drug delivery.

4.2.1 However, the problem underlying the patent in suit is to be formulated vis-à-vis the closest prior art, i.e. document (9). The part of the proposed technical problem, "simplification" of the known preparation method, cannot be accepted as being part of the objective technical problem as document (9) does not disclose any method of preparation for a balloon-expandable stent. The Respondent's interpretation with respect to the method of preparation of stent (20) according to document (9) is not supported by the facts (see point 4.1.2 above). Thus, the alleged problem of "simplifying" the method of document (9) is to be discarded when assessing inventive step.

4.2.2 The Appellant objected to a violation of the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC with respect to the above formulation of the technical problem submitting that any amendment of that technical problem vis-à-vis its formulation in the patent in suit should be in line with those requirements relying inter alia on the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 1/93 (supra).

4.2.2.1 Article 123(2) EPC, however, governs amendments of a European patent. It is not concerned with the issue whether or not an objectively reformulated technical problem may be used in the course of the "problem-solution approach" which was developed by the Boards as a tool for achieving objectivity and to avoid ex post facto analysis in the assessment of inventive step. Therefore, Article 123(2) EPC would only come into play if an amended technical problem was incorporated into the description itself, which is not the case here (see decision T 564/89, point 4.3 of the reasons; T 284/98, point 1.3.2 of the reasons; neither published in OJ EPO).

4.2.2.2 Decision G 1/93 deals with the conflicting requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC. Point 16 of the reasons which was referred to by the Appellant is solely concerned with the issue of whether or not the adding of an undisclosed limiting feature to a claim has to be considered as subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed. The formulation of the technical problem for assessing inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC according to the problem-solution approach is not addressed in that decision with the consequence that it does not apply to the present case.

4.2.2.3 Consequently, the Appellant's objection based on a violation of Article 123(2) EPC with respect to the formulation of the technical problem fails on these grounds.

4.2.3 It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that the objective problem underlying the claimed invention is to be solely determined on the basis of the technical results or effects successfully achieved vis-à-vis the closest state of the art (cf. point 4.1 above). When doing so it is permissible to (re)formulate the arising technical problem in particular in more ambitious terms (see decisions T 184/82, OJ EPO 1984, page 261, point 5 of the reasons; T 39/93, OJ EPO 1997, page 134, point 5.3.2 of the reasons). In the present case, inventive step can be assessed on the basis of the technical problem as defined in the paragraph 4.2 above, as it amounts only to a more elaborated formulation of the problem already indicated in the patent in suit, as well as in the application as filed, where the problem of keeping the therapeutic substance on the stent during its expansion and of controlling the rate of drug delivery was already addressed (see page 2, lines 36 to 39 of the patent in suit, corresponding to the last six lines of page 2 of the application as filed). Thus, in the Board's judgment, this technical problem is derivable from the patent in suit as well as from the application as filed.

4.3 Solution

The proposed solution is the method according to claim 1 characterized by steps (b) spraying onto the stent body in a plurality of application and drying steps a solution which comprises a solvent, a polymer dissolved in the solvent and a therapeutic substance dispersed in the solvent, and (c) evaporating said solvent.

4.4 Success

4.4.1 There are no comparative examples in the specification of the patent in suit showing that a coated stent prepared according to the method according to the invention would lead to a stent with an improved rate of drug delivery. According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, alleged but unsupported advantages cannot be taken into consideration in respect of the determination of the problem underlying the invention (see e.g. decision T 20/81, OJ EPO 1982, 217, point 3, last paragraph of the reasons). Since in the present case the alleged improvement, namely the better control rate of drug delivery lacks the required experimental support, the part of technical problem relating to the improvement of the control rate of drug delivery cannot be considered as being solved. The technical problem must therefore be reduced to that of improving the attachment of the coating on the stent during expansion of the stent.

4.4.2 In order to show that the problem of improving the attachment of the coating on the stent was successfully solved the Respondent referred to the comparative test submitted in annex A of the letter dated 24 November 2006.

4.4.3 According to established jurisprudence, in the case where comparative tests are chosen to demonstrate an inventive step with an improved effect over a claimed area, the nature of the comparison with the closest state of the art must be such that the effect is convincingly shown to have its origin in the distinguishing feature of the invention. For this purpose it may be necessary to modify the elements of comparison so that they differ only by such a distinguishing feature (see T 197/86, EPO OJ 1989, 371, points 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the reasons).

In the present circumstances, since document (9) does not disclose any method of preparation of balloon-expandable stents, in order to make a comparison of the properties of the balloon-expandable stents prepared according to the claimed method with those stents of document (9), it is necessary to supplement the teaching of document (9) with the teaching of a conventional method of preparing coated stents that the skilled person would have used for preparing the coated balloon-expandable stents disclosed in document (9). According to the submissions of both Parties, coating by dipping belongs to the conventional methods for preparing coated balloon-expandable stents (also see document (1), column 14, lines 54 to 57).

4.4.4 In this comparative test, coated stents prepared according to the claimed method, i.e. by spraying in 15 short bursts the stents suspended from a mandrel with a coating solution comprising a polymer and a therapeutic substance, while rotating on the mandrel and drying, were compared with coated stents prepared by rapidly dipping the stents 15 times in the same coating solution, the only difference between the two methods being the way of application of the coating solution onto the stent, i.e. by spraying as opposed to by dipping.

Hence, the comparative test provided by the Respondent is pertinent since it truly reflects the impact of the essential technical feature characterising the claimed method, namely coating the stent by spraying.

4.4.5 The Appellant argued that this test report did not represent a fair comparison. The method illustrating the invention comprised a step of rotating the stent suspended from a mandrel and thus was not carried out in a usual way. In the method illustrating the prior art, the coating solution was not optimized for a coating by dipping, in particular with regard to its viscosity, so that the amounts of the coating onto the stents obtained in the compared methods significantly differed. Furthermore it was not clear what was meant by the expression "stents were dipped rapidly", so that it was not possible to reproduce the experiment with accuracy.

A cylindrical stent is a three dimensional object. Accordingly, in order to spray a uniform coating on it, either the spray or the stent must rotate. Hence, allowing the stent to rotate by fixing it from a rotating mandrel, while spraying represents a sensible way of coating a stent by spraying.

Claim 1 is directed to a method of making a stent. Accordingly, in order to provide a fair comparison all features of the methods to be compared should be identical apart from the characterising feature, in the present case, the step of spraying as opposed to the step of dipping. Thus, in order to provide a fair comparison, it is therefore not objectionable to use the same coating composition. Besides, the Board observes that in the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal filed on 8 May 2006 (see points 1.4 and 1.5), the Appellant objected to the comparative tests provided in the patent in suit because the coating compositions used differed from each other.

The differences of the stent coating obtained by the methods compared in the report, including the alleged difference of coating weight on the stent objected to by the Appellant, are the direct consequences of the distinguishing feature of the compared processes. For this reason, any differences in the products obtained by the methods of preparation to be compared are not relevant as regards the fairness of the experiment which compares these methods.

The Appellant furthermore objected to the term "rapidly" in the test protocol as being not precise without, however, providing any evidence that a difference in the rapidity of the dipping would have a significant impact on the resulting coating. Mere unsubstantiated doubts expressed by the Appellant are not sufficient. Accordingly, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, the Board does not accept this objection as being a basis for disregarding the Respondent's comparative test report.

4.4.6 Thus, for the above reasons, the Board holds that the comparison provided by the Respondent in its comparative test report is fair and to be taken into consideration when assessing inventive step.

4.4.7 The comparative test report, i.e. annex A to the letter dated 24 November 2006, reveals that dip coated stents show a high degree of coating pooling whereas spray coated stents prepared according to the invention have an initial coating that is more uniform over the stent surface. After the stent has been crimped onto the balloon and/or final deployment, the coating is pulled away and/or missing from portions of dip coated stent struts whereas the coating of a spray coated stent remains uniform and adheres to the stent struts (see the optical and SEM images of annex A to the letter of 24 November 2006).

Hence, the Respondent's comparative tests reveal that the coating obtained by dipping, which lacks homogeneity (pooling), leads to detachment of the coating during expansion of the stent whereas no detachment occurs during the expansion of a coated stent obtained by spraying according to the claimed method, thereby indicating the better attachment of the coating.

4.4.8 The Appellant argued that the detachment was due to the unsuitable conditions used in this comparative test, in particular due to a difference in the coating weight obtained. In support of its argument, it relied on its own comparative tests filed on 22 August 2008 purportedly showing that there was no difference in the detachment of a coating between a spray-coated stent and a dip-coated stent.

In these comparative tests the stent was dip-coated according to a "Dip-High Speed Spin-Low speed Dry-Weight" process which, according to the Appellant, is disclosed in US-A-4955899. Thus, after dipping and before drying the stents were rotated about their longitudinal axis at approximately 1600-2000 rpm for 15 seconds.

Since this particular dip-coating technique only appears in a particular patent it cannot be considered as a conventional method for preparing a coated stent by dipping. Furthermore, this technique includes the additional feature of high speed spinning with the consequence that the methods compared not only differ by the characterising feature, namely the spraying step as opposed to the dipping step, but further differ by the spinning step occurring between the dipping and drying steps. These comparative tests therefore do not represent a fair comparison since they do not reflect the impact of the essential technical feature characterising the claimed method vis-à-vis that of the prior art, namely the impact of the step of spraying the coating solution onto the stent rather than dipping the stent into the solution.

Hence, the comparative tests filed on 22 August 2008 are not fair and must be discarded.

4.4.9 Breadth of the claim

A purported technical effect, in the present case the

improved attachment of the coating onto the stent obtained by the claimed methods, can only form the basis for the assessment of inventive step if it would be credible that this technical effect occurs across the whole scope claimed (see decision T 939/92, OJ 1996, 309, point 2.5.4 of the reasons). Therefore, it must be examined whether or not the improvement shown is likely to apply over the whole breadth of the claim.

It appears conceivable that the improvement of the claimed method compared to a method representing the closest prior art is due to the step of spraying as opposed to that of dipping. The Board prima facie sees no technical reasons why an improvement of the coating adhesion which was shown in the comparative test to be due to the step of application of the coating solution, i.e. by spraying as opposed to by dipping, as shown in the comparative test, should not be present over the whole scope of claim 1 which is limited to that way of application of the coating.

Nevertheless the Appellant submitted that the comparative test was carried out with fine spraying, with only one specific drug, with a single ratio drug/polymer, with one type of balloon-expandable stent, and with only two different polymers, solvents and concentrations. Hence, there was no proof that the improvement shown was achieved with all ways of spraying, with all drugs, solvents, polymers, ratios drug/polymer, concentrations and types of balloon-expandable stent. More particularly. the Appellant relied on the passage on page 3, lines 6 to 9 of the patent in suit, indicating a relationship between adhesion of the coating and nature of the polymer in the coating solution, and argued that a solvent evaporating too quickly or too slowly might not be appropriate. Since the detachment of the coating was due to pooling and that pooling was due to a particular form of the stent (e.g. presence of struts, sharp curves), it was to be expected that coil stents which lack those parts leading to pooling, such as those disclosed in documents (9) and (32), could be dipped-coated without any pooling, so that no detachment would occur during expansion. Thus, an improvement due to the step of spraying instead of dipping could not be implied.

According to the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, each of the parties to the proceedings carries the burden of proof for the facts it alleges. If a party, whose arguments rest on these alleged facts, does not discharge its burden of proof, this goes to the detriment of that party and such a party may not shift the onus of proof onto the other party (see T 270/90, OJ EPO 1993, 725, point 2.1 of the reasons; T 355/97, point 2.5.1 of the reasons; T 836/02, point 4.5 of the reasons; T 176/04, point 5.6.3 of the reasons; all but T 270/90 not published in OJ EPO).

With regard to the allegation of non-achievement of a better effect with conventional spraying or with a coating solution comprising any other drugs, concentrations and/or ratios, the Appellant merely expressed doubts that the claimed method would achieve an improvement. However, the Appellant neither substantiated its objection nor filed evidence for its allegation that those variations necessarily would destroy the improvement shown by the comparative tests of the Respondent. As there is no apparent and compelling technical reason why this should be the case, and in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Appellant has not discharged its burden of proof, with the consequence that this unsubstantiated allegation is not to be taken into account by the Board.

The Appellant has also not provided any supporting evidence showing that the improved adhesion of the coating on the stent was linked to the chosen polymer, but relied merely on the passage on page 3, lines 7 to 9 of the specification of the patent in suit indicating that the adhesion of the coating could be controlled by the selection of an appropriate polymer.

However, the problem underlying the patent in suit is to provide a method which improves the adhesion of the coating, i.e. a relative property. That this problem was solved was demonstrated in the Respondent's comparative tests showing that the improvement of the adhesion was the result of the method of application of the coating onto the stent, i.e. by spraying as opposed to dipping, regardless of the polymer used, namely poly L-lactic acid or polycaprolactone, thus indicating that the improvement was not due to the nature of the polymer per se. The Appellant's argument that the claimed method encompassed polymers that also provide low coating attachment is therefore not convincing in the present case, since a relative improvement of the coating has been shown on account of the different method of application of the coating, irrespective from the nature of the polymer.

As regards the argument that the improved adhesion of the coating is dependant on the form of the stent, the Appellant referred to coil stents and relied on documents (9) and (32) to show that they were balloon-expandable stents not having the drawback of pooling.

However, the coil stent described in document (9) is the stent (10) of figure 1 which is a self-expandable stent, and, thus, excluded from the claimed method which requires a balloon-expandable stent (see point 4.1.2 above).

The stent disclosed in document (32) is a wire having a balloon-expandable serpentine configuration formed into a cylindrical shape, and thus comprises curved sections (see figures 1 to 5) on which pooling is likely to occur when the stent is dipped into a coating solution.

Accordingly, in the absence of any substantiation or evidence to the contrary, it is plausible that a balloon-expandable stent necessarily comprises sections, such as curves, which lead to pooling when the stent is dipped into a coating solution thereby rendering credible for any balloon-expandable stent that the improvement of the adhesion of a coating obtained by spraying rather than by dipping is achieved.

4.4.10 The Appellant raised an objection under Article 123(2) EPC, since there was no disclosure in the application as filed of a causal link between the step of spraying and the degree of attachment of the coating. The application as filed disclosed that all coating methods were equivalent so that there was no disclosure permitting the Respondent to base inventive step on the selection of one of the coating methods.

This objection is in fact a repetition of the point already dealt with in point 4.2.2 above. There is no basis for this objection. In particular Article 123(2) EPC does not apply to the assessment of technical effects in the problem/solution approach, but exclusively governs formal requirements to be satisfied by amendments made to a European patent (application), which text in the present case however has not been amended in this respect. Therefore the Appellant's argument is not convincing.

4.4.11 For theses reasons, the Board is satisfied that the partial technical problem underlying the patent in suit relating to the improvement of the attachment of the coating on the stent has been successfully solved by the proposed solution, i.e. by the method according to claim 1 characterized by the spraying step (b).

4.5 Obviousness

Finally, it remains to be decided whether or not the proposed solution to this objective technical problem is obvious in view of the cited state of the art.

4.5.1 During the oral proceedings before the Board, the Appellant exclusively addressed document (1) in order to object to obviousness.

Document (1) relates to coated medical devices, in particular coated arterial grafts. Although this document addresses the importance of the adhesion of the coating to the device (column 7, lines 26 to 31), it lacks any hint on how to improve this adhesion. In particular, document (1) does not teach that an improvement of adhesion can be obtained by the choice of a particular coating technique, all techniques taught as being equivalent (see column 14, lines 54 to 57). Accordingly, document (1) does not point to the claimed solution, which is characterized by the use of a particular coating method, namely spraying (step (b)), for solving the technical problem underlying the patent in suit.

4.5.2 The Appellant argued that document (1) taught the solution proposed as such. There were only a few methods of coating described in document (1). The skilled person when following the teaching in document (1) would automatically and inevitably arrive at the proposed solution. The fact that this coating method provided an enhancement of the coating adhesion was merely a bonus effect, which could not contribute to an inventive step.

However, in order for the "bonus effect" approach of the Appellant to succeed it would need to demonstrate that the person skilled in art was effectively on a "one-way street" (see decision T 192/82, OJ EPO 1984, 415). This "one-way street" should have inevitably led him to adopt exclusively the spraying method instead of the other coating methods under consideration in document (1), however, all coating methods are taught therein to be equivalent.

The Appellant's argumentation implies that the skilled person would have taken into consideration document (1) to solve the underlying problem. However, this is not the case, because document (1) does not address the problem of improving the coating adhesion, so that, as already stated in point 4.5.1 above, the solution to this problem is not rendered obvious by document (1).

It is the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that, when assessing inventive step according to the problem/solution approach, the decisive question is not whether the skilled person could have arrived at the invention, in the present case by using the spraying coating technique disclosed in document (1), but whether he would have done so for solving the problem underlying the patent in suit with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, as is clear from the preceding considerations, the latter condition has not been met since the decisive fact remains that document (1) lacks any hint on how to solve the problem underlying the invention, i.e. to enhance the adhesion of the coating. Therefore, the Appellant's argument fails because the skilled person would not have considered document (1) in order to solve the technical problem underlying the patent in suit, the solution of coating the stent by spraying disclosed inter alia in document (1) can be only the result of an inadmissible ex post facto analysis.

4.5.3 In respect of obviousness, the Appellant did not rely on any further documents and the Board is not aware of further documents relevant in this respect. Thus, the Board is satisfied that none of the other documents in the proceedings renders the proposed solution obvious.

4.5.4 Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1, and for the same reason, that according to dependent claims 2 to 11 involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

Entscheidungsformel

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of claims 1 to 11 of the main request filed on 24 November 2006 and a description yet to be adapted.

Footer - Service & support
  • Unterstützung
    • Aktualisierungen der Website
    • Verfügbarkeit der Online-Dienste
    • FAQ
    • Veröffentlichungen
    • Verfahrensbezogene Mitteilungen
    • Kontakt
    • Aboverwaltung
    • Offizielle Feiertage
    • Glossar
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & Karriere
  • Pressezentrum
  • Single Access Portal
  • Beschaffung
  • Beschwerdekammern
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Impressum
  • Nutzungsbedingungen
  • Datenschutz
  • Barrierefreiheit