So what do we know about the OD ruling?

By Karl M. Bidstrup On 12. February 2012 · 3 Comments · In BioPorto

According to the document on EPOLINE: “Information about the result of oral proceedings” the patent is revoked as it did not meet the requirements of EPC art. 101 (3)(b).

So what does that mean?

According to the European Patent Convention, it means: ”

“(3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates

(b) do not meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall revoke the patent. “

So thats the official statement from EPO at this point.

In the official (and now translated) statement from Bioporto, they claim that: “The EPO’s opinion is that there is an insufficient description in the patent to perform the method as specified in claim 1.”

So what does claim 1…. well claim?

It claims 2 thing.

1: That you can measure the likelihood of a renal disorder, by measuring in bodily fluids, and thereby determine the concentration of NGAL in this bodily fluid, and if….

2: the concentration is over 250 Ng/ml, it is indicative of a renal disorder.

So either its the 250 ng/ml, or the use of any bodily fluid that is beeing questioned by the EPO OD.

Lets focus on that, and find out what we can.

About Karl M. Bidstrup

Tidligere ejer af Medicoinvestor.com Strategien har gennem mange år været at profitere på etablerede aktier, og brænde det hele af på Bioporto... Sad but true. Kontakt mig på medicoinvestor(A)gmail.com hvis du har en million du ikke ved hvor du skal gemme, så skal jeg nok holde den for dig. 🙂

3 Responses to So what do we know about the OD ruling?

admin says:

17. February 2012 at 20:29

A thought derived from the OD preliminary report…. Perhaps its a problem with the fact that the OD claim that the invention confines to a person who you already suspects of having an injury, and not as Bioporto claims, that the invention is applicable on ALL humans. Hence the invention is not obvious to "one skilled in the art", as the patent says nothing about WHEN and HOW the suspicion of the "already present" injury, is made…

Well, its just a thought….

Reply
MedicoInvestor says:

17. February 2012 at 20:19

A thought derived from the OD preliminary report…. Perhaps its a problem with the fact that the OD claim that the invention confines to a person who you already suspects of having an injury, and not as Bioporto claims, that the invention is applicable on ALL humans. Hence the invention is not obvious to "one skilled in the art", as the patent says nothing about WHEN and HOW the suspicion of the "already present" injury, is made…

Well, its just a thought….

Reply
Anonymous says:

12. February 2012 at 19:40

You can find the European Patent Convention here: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/…

Reply