What does the decision mean for the assessment of inventive step at the UPC?
Key takeaways
- CoA revisited the facts with respect to inventive step and concluded that the prior art provided incentive for the skilled person to modify prior art document, Gȍransson, to arrive at claim 1, overturning the
Court of First Instance's decision - The CoA did not endorse or criticise the
Court of First Instances following of the EPO's problem-solution approach to inventive step and unclear how much expert evidence taken into account
Introduction
The
In coming to this decision, the
This article focusses in particular on the assessment of inventive step.
Background to the dispute
The Court of Appeal decision
The
The claimed method
At a simplified level, claim 1 of the patent relates to a method of detecting a number of analytes in a cell or tissue sample by incubating the sample with a number of detection reagents, each detection reagents including (i) a probe reagent being capable of binding to one of the analytes, and being conjugated to (ii) a subsequence that is designed to be hybridised with a decoder probe. The decoder probes are designed to hybridise with a subsequence of the detection reagent and also include detectable label with a signal signature.
The method specifies detecting the subsequences in a temporally-sequential manner by hybridising a set of decoder probes with the subsequence, detecting the signal signature, removing the signal signature and repeating the hybridisation and removal sequence with different sets of decoder probes.
In this way, the method enables the detection and visualisation of multiple targets in a single cell or tissue sample. The specific wording of claim 1 is as follows:
A method for detecting a plurality of analytes in a cell or tissue sample, comprising:
(a) mounting the cell or tissue sample on a solid support;
(b) contacting the cell or tissue sample with a composition comprising a plurality of detection reagents, the plurality of detection reagents comprising a plurality of subpopulations of detection reagents;
(c) incubating the cell or tissue sample together with the plurality of detection reagents for a sufficient amount of time to allow binding of the plurality of detection reagents to the analytes;
wherein each subpopulation of the plurality of detection reagents targets a different analyte, wherein each of the plurality of detection reagents comprises: a probe reagent targeting an analyte of the plurality of analytes and one or a plurality of pre-determined subsequences, wherein the probe reagent and the one or the plurality of pre-determined subsequences are conjugated together;
(d) detecting in a temporally-sequential manner the one or the plurality of pre-determined subsequences, wherein the detecting comprises:
(i) hybridizing a set of decoder probes with a subsequence of the detection reagents, wherein the set of decoder probes comprises a plurality of subpopulations of decoder probes and wherein each subpopulation of the decoder probes comprises a detectable label, each detectable label producing a signal signature;
(ii) detecting the signal signature produced by the hybridization of the set of decoder probes;
(iii) removing the signal signature; and
(iv) repeating (i) and (iii) using a different set of decoder probes to detect other subsequences of the detection reagents, thereby producing a temporal order of the signal signatures unique for each subpopulation of the plurality of detection reagents;
(e) using the temporal order of the signal signatures corresponding to the one or the plurality of the pre-determined subsequences of the detection reagent to identify a subpopulation of the detection reagents, thereby detecting the plurality of analytes in the cell or tissue sample.
Inventive step
The Court of Appeal considered Gȍransson "would have been of keen interest to a person skilled in the art who ... was seeking to develop high-throughput optical multiplexing methods for detecting target molecules in a sample." While the
Gȍransson describes forming genomic DNA circles from specific genomic DNA sequences isolated from blood samples and selector probes (i) and the DNA circles are amplified by RCA (rolling-circle amplification) (ii) or otherwise enriched (iii) to generate amplified single molecules (ASMs). The ASMs are then immobilised and a random array is generated on a microscopy glass slide. The ASMs immobilised in the array are decoded by sequential hybridisation of sandwich probes, tag probes (red or blue) and a general probe after they have been incubated for one hour on shake at 55°C.
The Court of Appeal considered that the only difference between claim 1 of the patent and Gȍransson is the use of ASMs generated from genomic DNA isolated from blood samples rather than cell or tissue samples. The Court of Appeal concluded that "after successful application of an in vitro multiplex method for the detection of ASMs, the next step was to consider transferring the method to an in situ environment."
The Court of Appeal justified this conclusion from (i) journal article references in Gȍransson that refer to in situ genotyping and (ii) a prior art reference (Stougaard et al., B30) describing a method for the detection of non-polyadenylated RNA molecules using "a new probe format" ("Turtle Probes"), which was initially carried out in vitro in "a controlled environment" and, after successful implementation was also tested in situ with positive results."
In contrast, the first instance decision considered that "no such inducement has been presented." In particular, the first instance decision refers to Nanostring's expert declaration, which allegedly admits "obvious differences" between "DNA fixed on a slide" (as in Gȍransson) and "a fixed tissue sample on a slide" (as in the patent claim). The first instance decision interprets the opinion of Nanostring's expert as meaning the person skilled in the art would have no insurmountable objections to applying the teaching from Göransson to a cell or tissue sample (and would thus see a "very high expectation of success").
There is no reference to Nanostring's expert opinion (or
As such, the
The reference to "more likely than not" in the conclusion stems from the
Other points
The Court of Appeal's approach to claim construction followed Article 69 EPC and the Protocol on its interpretation. In essence, the claims must not be limited to their strict literal interpretation, but the description and drawings should be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation. However, the claims do not serve only as a guideline. Overall, the
With respect to novelty, the
Commentary
Interestingly, theCourt
Patent Offices and courts have established reasonably well-defined approaches to inventive step in order to maintain an objective approach and reduce the risk of a subjective assessment. It would be helpful for the
It is also curious that there was no explicit mention of the expert witness evidence in the
Of course, it must be remembered that the
With 274 cases before the UPC at the end of
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
HLK
One
BS1 6BH
Tel: 117910 3200
E-mail: NKoniakhina@hlk-ip.com
URL: www.hlk-ip.com/
© Mondaq Ltd, 2024 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source