- Millionærklubben i 24syv
- Om MedicoInvestor.com
As you are all painfully aware of, EPO (European Patent Organisation) held Oral Proceedings on the fate of the courted NGAL cutoff-patent, on Feb. the 8th
Now – after ONLY three months (sic !) the details of the proceedings are made public.
It is, however, pretty much as what we have been expecting – NO explanation of the decision of revocation. It looks to me as if BioPorto (Høiberg) decided late in the evening on the first day, that unless OD (Opposition Division) came up with some sort of satisfactory reasoning - as to WHY the request did not meet the requirements article 83 EPC, then it would be futile to amend the request. – I have to say – I agree…
Unless you can be told in what way the OD finds the claims not to be relevant and in accordance with article 83 – how can you change them ? – and – and this is probably the most important argument – if the facts are correct (and BioPorto maintains to this very day that the findings are correct) then there is no reason to change them…. Math is math….
The focus point seems to be: article 83 – that says… : “The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.” we are therefore at the core of the discussion – the scientific data, where BioPorto before the Oral proceedings demonstrated that the OD did not read the findings correctly (and therefor made a erroneous calculation)
In my view it looks as if Høiberg decided that she would not be able to satisfy an OD, that showed no ability to explain why they would see the patent changed (or revoked) and that Høiberg therefore made the right decision to press for a “retrial” at a first instance. Thus there could be no other ruling – bearing in mind that Høiberg had already started that the decision (to revoke) would be appealed.
One can only imagine the discussion…
OD says “CHANGE your claims !”
BioP says “Change what, and why ?
OD says “We don’t know what - but you have to Change”
BioP “Just for the sake of argument – suppose we concede to change – why ?”
OD says “We don’t know why – but you have to Change”
OD says – “Oh, and by the way – you have to do it in 5 minutes – so the Opponents can have 12 hours to rip it to shreads”
BioP ” We give up… nobody can explain what we are to change or why – not even after a whole nights sleep – lets move for a retrial…”
it sort of brings this to mind:
- Abbott submissions for the Oral Proceedings. Abbott submission for EPO OD Oral Proceedings News from EPOLINE:...