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 2025

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

Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Gift this article