T 0233/96 (Adrenaline/MEDCO RESEARCH) of 4.5.2000

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2000:T023396.20000504
Date of decision: 04 May 2000
Case number: T 0233/96
Application number: 89303960.2
IPC class: A61K 31/70
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 46.175K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Use of adenosine and its derivatives in diagnosis
Applicant name: MEDCO RESEARCH INC
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
Keywords: Novelty (yes): after limitation
Inventive step (no): claimed diagnostic application of adenosine obvious in view of its known diagnostic and therapeutic application
Second auxiliary request: reference to
no novel diagnostic application
Catchwords:

If the use of a compound was known in the treatment or diagnosis of a disease of a particular group of subjects, the treatment or diagnosis of the same disease with the same compound could nevertheless represent a novel therapeutic or diagnostic application, provided that it is carried out on a new group of subjects which is distinguished from the former by its physiological or pathological status (T 0019/86, T 0893/90).

This does not apply, however if the group chosen overlaps with the group previously treated or the choice of the novel group is arbitrary which means that no functional relationship does exist between the particular physiological or pathological status of this group of subjects (here humans who are unable to exercise adequately) and the therapeutic or pharmacological effect achieved.

Cited decisions:
T 0021/81
T 0019/86
T 0893/90
Citing decisions:
G 0002/08
T 0485/99
T 0708/02
T 1399/04
T 0108/09
T 0734/12

8 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Case Law Book: I Patentability

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law