●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 ●● ● Sep 05 [01:06] schestowitz https://yewtu.be/watch?v=uBTR611oqZA [01:06] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/make-no-bones-about-it-credibility-test.html?showComment=1693835170001#c1217232262193059224 [01:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-yewtu.be | OpenSolaris - Invidious [01:06] schestowitz "@Anonymous
@Santa
@DX Thomas

I posted the following comment yesterday but for some reason it has not been published, so I redo it. Sorry for the unconvenience.

Thank you for your replies. My question somehow reflected the surprise of somebody who is not a pharma specialist at the content of claim 1 of the patent as granted : the substance or composition recited in claim 1 (calcium phosphate etc) be [01:06] schestowitz ing nothing more than bone tissue, and the method being a surgical step excluded under Art 53(c) EPC, how come features so clearly devoid of any patentable character can have been granted ?
It is to be noted that the patentee holds another EP patent (2987507) in which claim 1 as granted contains much more specific information regarding the composition. The patentee has not put all their eggs in one basket.
I also have to [01:06] schestowitz stress that the value of patents is not limited to their enforcement against infringing activities. Patents can be very effective in non-contentious relationships including to attract third party investments and partnerships.
I fully concur with Mr Thomas that the EPO has no reason to worry about the value of the patent in infringement proceedings. This is why I also think that the concern about legal certainty cited by the EPO a [01:06] schestowitz s motivation for the requirement to adapt the description to the claims is beyond its remit." [01:06] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Make no bones about it: The "credibility test" has no place in the novelty assessment of second medical use claims (T 0558/20) - The IPKat [01:06] schestowitz "I never said that Mr Hagels question was not reasonable. It was simply out of bounds. What would be the legal basis for the EPO to refuse a patent for lack of commercial interest? This question has not been answered, neither by Mr Hagel, nor by yourself.

EPO is there to grant patents if the conditions set up by the EPC are met. The rest is indeed irrelevant and has nothing to do with EPOs self-interests. For instance, [01:06] schestowitz if the patent certificate ends up on the wall of inventors lounge, there is nothing to say.

If an applicant/proprietor is prepared to fork out money for a patent of little commercial value, this is his problem, not that of the EPO. By the way, the patent can always been brought to lapse by not paying annual fees.

I have granted or maintained patents, the value of which was prima facie doubtful. In view of the [01:06] schestowitz EPC there was no alternative.

Once, the representative, a former colleague, told me that the invention was that of the head of R&D. It was anticipated to 90% by a publication in IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, not even a patent! If the representative would not have got a patent, he risked having a hard time. As the conditions of the EPC were met, there was no reason to refuse the application. " [01:06] schestowitz "This reminds me of the famous quote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

Literally every aspect of this case parallels the Yeda case, which was decided (by reasoned order) in November 2011. That was after the date of grant of the basic patent for Newron (EP 1 613 296 B1), but well before the date of grant of the divisional (EP 2 070 526 B1) containing equival [01:06] schestowitz ent claims in EPC2000 format.

On this basis, it is hard to understand why the patentee did not take the precaution of securing protection for EPC2000 format claims directed to safinamide for use in the (inventive) combination therapy. That looks like it ought to have been eminently achievable, and would have given rise to eligibility for SPC protection for safinamide." ● Sep 05 [02:47] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 05 [03:31] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [03:36] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@tqmhqqifyxsti.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:41] *MinceR gives voice to u-amarsh04 ● Sep 05 [04:08] *jacobk (~quassel@838aynky6btpe.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:14] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 05 [15:27] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [15:30] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 05 [16:58] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 05 [17:00] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [17:13] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:22] *jacobk (~quassel@skdysgiaygtcc.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:23] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [17:36] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 05 [19:09] *asusbox has quit (connection closed) [19:09] *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:10] *MinceR gives voice to asusbox [19:13] *asusbox has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [19:13] *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:15] *MinceR gives voice to asusbox [19:22] *asusbox has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [19:22] *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:22] *MinceR gives voice to asusbox ● Sep 05 [20:13] *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:13] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [20:17] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:49] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Sep 05 [21:01] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [21:42] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:44] *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:51] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [21:52] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Sep 05 [23:36] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes [23:58] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk