T 0663/02 () of 17.3.2011 | XEPC: EPC and PCT resource

European Case Law Identifier:

ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T066302.20110317

Date of decision:

17 March 2011

Case number:

T 0663/02

Application number:

96944505.5

IPC class:

G01R 33/563

Language of proceedings:

Distribution:

Download and more information:

Decision text in EN (PDF, 46Â KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:	EN
Versions:	Unpublished

Title of application:

Method for magnetic resonance imaging of arteries using a magnetic resonance contrast agent

Applicant name:

Prince, Martin, R.

Opponent name:

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.

Board:

3.4.01

Headnote:

I. The fact that an intravenous injection of a magnetic resonance contrast agent can be delegated by a physician to a qualified paramedical professional indicates that such an injection may be considered as representing a minor routine intervention which does not imply a substantial health risk when carried out with the required care and skill. Such acts would be ruled out from the scope of the application of the exclusion clause pursuant to Article 53(c) EPC following the narrow understanding advocated by the EBA (G 0001/04 and 0001/07) (Reasons, 3.2.4).
II. A possible way of assessing health risks is to use a risk matrix permitting to combine the levels of likelihood and health impact of a complication of a medical act with regard to a large number of patients, so as to obtain statistical health risk scores which may be used to decide what action should be taken. Such a risk assessment supports the view that an intravenous injection of a magnetic resonance contrast agent represents a minor routine intervention involving no substantial health risks when carried out with the required care and skill (Reasons, 3.2.5).

Relevant legal provisions:

European Patent Convention Art 53(c)

Keywords:

Catchwords:

Cited decisions:

G 0001/04
G 0001/07
T 0182/90

Citing decisions:

T 1075/06
T 1695/07
T 2699/17

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020663eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021