Substance, composition, or device? EPO addresses method of reaching a decision

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Substance, composition, or device? EPO addresses method of reaching a decision

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
Patent Health Care Pharmaceuticals Innovation concept. Copy rights patented certified medicine.

While concrete definitions are still lacking, Peter Koefoed of Inspicos says patent applicants seeking protection for second medical uses of products could now find it easier to build their case

Under Article 53(c) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), methods of therapy or surgery for humans and animals are exempted from patentability, as are diagnostic methods carried out on the human or animal body. At the same time, Article 53(c) specifies that this exemption does not apply to products – in particular, substances and compositions – for use in these methods.

Moreover, Article 54(5), by legal fiction, acknowledges novelty of any "substance or composition" for use in such exempted methods that are themselves novel. It can be derived from the wording of the latter provisions that they only apply to a subset of the products mentioned in Article53(c): substances and compositions.

Board of appeal case law has previously sought to establish criteria for determining whether a product is a substance or composition and not a device. These criteria are laid down in the Guidelines for Examination, G-VI, 6.1.1, which states that a product qualifies as a substance or composition if it is the active agent or ingredient in the specific medical use and if the therapeutic effect can be ascribed to its chemical properties (see G 5/83 and T 1758/15).

In decision T 1252/20 (relating to peptides used in cancer treatment by mechanically blocking blood vessels), of February 6 2024, the board saw no basis in the EPC for considering the mode of action of the claimed substance or composition to determine compliance with Article 54(5). The board pointed out that the exempted methods in Article 53(c) are not merely medical methods but also surgery and diagnostic methods. Moreover, the precise mode of action of a product is not always known. The board hence concluded that it is only relevant to consider whether the claimed product is a substance or composition but not to consider its mode of action.

T 1252/20 does not offer a concrete definition of a substance or composition. Nevertheless, applicants may face fewer obstacles when seeking protection at the EPO for second medical uses of products in cases where the claimed product at face value does not have device-like features.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm says new additions position Brown Rudnick as a market leader in tech, life sciences, and global litigation
Richard Quatrano, counsel at Olshan Frome Wolosky, shares why technology M&A buyers and sellers must verify written IP assignments, as broken ownership chains can undermine valuation, deal terms, and closing certainty
Appointment of AI and copyright expert Anna Naydonov, as well as another partner from Orrick, shows how firms can attract top litigators through leveraging the power of their existing teams
K&L Gates and Baker Botts have recruited leading patent practitioners from Wende IP and EIP, respectively, as they seek to strengthen European patent litigation capabilities
The departure of a large chunk of Spruson & Ferguson's legacy leadership could have destabilised the firm, but it's fighting back with strategic hires and promotions
By accepting a relatively small sample of infringing content to grant worldwide relief, a UK court has adopted a pragmatic approach that could reduce the time and expense involved in huge enforcement actions
This year’s IP STARS Americas rankings reveal that firms are expanding their capabilities, particularly in trade secrets and life sciences
Law firms’ expanding IP capabilities are driving broader industry recognition across a wider range of practice areas
As specialist boutiques challenge traditional firm models, major disputes involving Disney, Ericsson, Siemens and Dolby highlight the firms winning work before the UPC
The firm has added two leading damages specialists as it expands beyond technical analysis and deepens its role in the economics of IP litigation
Gift this article