Japan: Inventive step related to dosage and administration

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Japan: Inventive step related to dosage and administration

Zoledronic acid hydrate (zoledronate) is a medicinal compound created by Novartis and is also an active substance of the bone resorption inhibitor named Zometa for i v infusion. Novartis filed a Japanese patent application including the claimed invention as follows: "An agent for treatment containing 2-(imidazol-1-yl)-1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid (Zoledronate) or pharmaceutically acceptable salts, wherein 4 mg of Zoledronate is to be administered intravenously over a period of 15 minutes to a patient in need of bisphosphonate treatment."

JPO

Both the inventions stated in D1 and the claimed invention are commonly agents for treatment containing 4mg of zoledronate to be administered intravenously within certain minutes. However, "five-minute" corresponds to "certain minutes" in D1, whereas "fifteen-minute" is mentioned in the claimed invention.

D3 discloses that the slow administration of bisphosphonate with large quantities of liquid is preferred for preventing the renal insufficiency caused by its prompt administration. D2 discloses that zoledronate used to be administered intravenously within five to 30 minutes and its 20-minute administration causes a serum calcium lowering effect. Thus, making the five-minutes of the intravenous administration time slow, and arriving at 15 minutes, was merely an exercise for skilled persons to do experimentally.

IP High Court

In the judgment of December 24 2014, the IP High Court (Presiding Judge Tomita) rescinded the JPO's decision.

D2 is a document explaining phase I clinical trials using zoledronate for tumour-induced hypercalcemia patients and so on. D1 is a document explaining phase II clinical trials using it for multiple myeloma patients and breast cancer patients. The result of phase III clinical trials using it for breast cancer patients or multiple myeloma patients was published after the filing of the patent application.

Zoledronate indicating an action to suppress the function of osteoclasts is the third-generation bisphosphonate. The results of phase I clinical trials stated in D2 reveal that zoledronate works more promptly than the other bisphosphonates and indicate the prolonged serum calcium lowering effects and any symptoms of renal toxicities are not shown in the osteolytic bone metastasis patients who have a normal calcium plasma and are administered intravenously 0.1mg to 8mg of zoledronate within five minutes. The results suggest that the short-time intravenous administration of zoledronate would be safe. Furthermore, the subsequent phase II clinical trials stated in D1 also reveal that the safety of the five-minute intravenous administration of "0.4mg, 2mg or 4mg of zoledronate" to breast cancer patients and multiple myeloma patients is comparable to that of the two-hour intravenous administration of 90mg of pamidronate, and the preventive effects caused by the five-minute intravenous administration of 4mg of zoledronate to osteolytic bone complication patients are comparable to those of the two-hour intravenous administration of 90mg of pamidronate.

According to the above disclosure in D1 and D2, skilled persons can easily understand that the low amount of 4mg of zoledronate causes the medicinal effects comparable to 90mg of pamidronate, and short-time five-minute intravenous administration confirms the safety.

The results of such clinical trials indicate no result that raises a doubt about safety at the stage of phase I and phase II clinical trials, even taking into account the existence of the possibility that dosage and administration will be changed to safer levels as a result of a phase III trial showing a different result concerning the safety of said dosage and administration in consideration of the stepwise nature of clinical trials. Therefore, even from the perspective of convenience for and reduction of burden on patients, it is difficult to find a motivation to further extend "five-minute" in D1 to "fifteen-minute" by D1 and D2.

According to the background to development of second- and third-generation bisphosphonate and actual results of prompt administration at the time of the priority date, skilled persons could understand that knowledge about adverse events to the kidney caused by prompt administration of first-generation bisphosphonate, which is stated in D3, is not immediately applicable to zoledoronate, which is the third-generation bisphosphonate.

Taking into account that zoledoronate is a bisphosphonate which is 100 to 850 times as highly active as pamidronate and that it has a higher bone resorption inhibiting effect than incadronate and alendronate and its administration in a small dose suffices, it is also difficult to find a motivation to further extend the administration time, that is, five-minute administration of 4 mg of zoledoronate, of which safety was confirmed in D1 and D2, from the perspective of convenience for and reduction of burden on patients.

Practical tips

In 2009, the JPO examination guideline was revised to permit dosage/administration claims. However, dosage/administration claims for solving problems such as reduction of adverse effect usually lack inventive step according to this guideline. As the claim is directed to the reduction of adverse effect in the kidney, the inventive step could be denied according to the guideline. The JPO actually rejected the claim.

However, the IP High Court found no motivation to further extend the administration time existing because adverse effect in kidney caused by 4mg/five minutes administration was not recognised by the skilled person. Recently, the courts have held that the problem to be solved should be easily set when rejecting the application due to lack of inventive step. This judgment is in line with this tendency. If the invention is directed to the reduction of adverse effects, it is important for the applicants to prove that the problem to be solved is not well-known as is stated in the JPO examination guideline.

Abe_Takanori

Takanori Abe

Isamu Kotobuki

ABE & Partners

Matsushita IMP Building

1-3-7, Shiromi, Chuo-ku, Osaka, 540-0001, Japan

Tel: +81 6 6949 1496

Fax: +81 6 6949 1487

abe@abe-law.com

www.abe-law.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We preview Managing IP’s ‘IP Ones to Watch’ list, meet our newest recruit, and look back over the final law firm rankings release of the year
Michael Conway and Flora Hachemi of Haseltine Lake Kempner consider what brand owners and prospective trademark applicants need to know in the wake of the UKIPO’s SkyKick guidance
Our exclusive survey reveals German firms are failing to manage costs and develop young talent, but some counsel believe this is happening behind the scenes
Ulla Loreth, IP counsel at Puma in Germany, says logistics intermediaries can no longer turn a blind eye after ‘game-changing’ judgment in the fight against counterfeits
Ahmed Hankawi joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss his approach to cases, and why he admires lawyers who help develop the next generation
Mercedes Bullrich looks back on her career and explains how a life shaped by fresh starts will help her develop a new firm
AI
Leaders at four firms share their hiring approach, including whether AI knowledge is a must-have for new staff
McKool Smith and Licks Attorneys are acting in the dispute, which alleges infringement of patents covering video-related technologies
Legacy firm Allen & Overy agreed a high-profile tie-up with US firm Shearman & Sterling in May last year
News of Verizon settling its lawsuit with Headwater Research and a copyright setback for AI firm Perplexity at a New York court were also among the top talking points
Gift this article