< Back to latest news & events

Healthcare Scanner

The beginning of the end for functionally defined medical devices?

March 2021

What is the best practice for obtaining patent protection for functionally defined medical devices before the European Patent Office?

The European Patent Office is responsible for granting European patent rights in respect of a multitude of inventions, including medical devices. Generally, a European patent cannot be granted in respect of methods of treatment of the human or animal body, either by surgery or therapy [1]. However, the law stipulates that this exception to patentability does not apply to products, particularly substances or compositions, for use in such methods [2]. The function of this patentability exclusion is to provide medical and veterinary practitioners the freedom to use the best available treatments without being inhibited by a worry that such a treatment might be covered by a patent [3].

A change in practice?

A recent decision of the Board of Appeal [4] has cast doubt on how this exclusion is applied in practice. In this case, the patent under review related to a device for desynchronising neuronal brain activity. The patent included a single independent claim, specifically directed to a device for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, essential tremor, dystonia, or the like. This group of neurological conditions is characterised by an undesirable synchronisation of activity in two neural subpopulations in the brain. In order to treat such conditions, the device included two electrodes and a controller, the controller arranged to control the electrodes to stimulate the subpopulations of so as to desynchronise them. In essence, independent claim 1 of the patent functionally defined that the device includes a controller to emit a stimulus to the brain via electrodes, thereby causing activity in the brain to desynchronise between two subregions.

An opposition was subsequently filed after grant, which was initially dismissed by the European Patent Office, a decision which was appealed by the Opponent. In the appeal proceedings, the Board of Appeal reviewed the decision and decided that the device, despite being novel, was excluded from patentability as a method of treatment by surgery. The patent was revoked.

In discussing their decision, the Board noted that “the claimed device was inevitably implanted by a non-patentable surgical step, otherwise the distinguishing feature [i.e. the control means for emitting stimuli via the electrodes] would not be able to be implemented”. As such, since implantation into the brain represents a method of treatment by surgery, the subject-matter was considered as excluded.

Avoiding the potential pitfalls from the outset

The decision is interesting in that it suggests that a functionally defined device, which requires a surgical step to implement its function within the body, is excluded from patentability, despite not relating to a method per se. Interestingly, this appears contrary to the established view in the “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal” text [5], which notes that “The fact that some features of the claimed apparatus were functionally defined in relation to the body of the patient did not, in itself, transform the apparatus claim into a method claim”.

However, whilst this case does cause some uncertainty, there are steps that can be taken to avoid such objections, or at least provide possible solutions, from the outset.

  • As always during the drafting process, it is crucial that different language is provided in the specification so that any potential objections can be addressed during prosecution by suitable amendment to the claims. This is also true in relation to the exclusion noted above. If a functional definition of the invention is desired, then it is critical to include surrounding language, including structural definitions, in the description. Other language relating to the device prior to use, or prior to implantation or similar into the body, is also useful if a functional definition is to be maintained.
  • Whilst discussing amendments it is worth noting the strict added subject-matter approach taken in respect of amendments in Europe – although verbatim support in the application as filed is not strictly required, the European Examiners tend to prefer to follow the language of the specification as originally filed. This is particularly notable for amendments derived from the detailed description of the drawings – as European Examiners often insist on all features of an embodiment to be recited within the independent claims, thereby restricting a patentee’s scope of protection. Therefore, when drafting the application having a functional definition in claim 1, it is critical that “ready to use” claim language is included in the description. This is especially true for US-originating applications, in which amendments during prosecution are typically derived from the detailed description.
  • It is also important to remember not only how the invention is claimed, but also how the invention is defined. The European examiners take particular note of “essential” language, such as “must” and “indispensable”, indicating essentiality to the invention, and typically require such indicated features to be included within the independent claims. In order to preempt such objections, and indeed to avoid having to include unnecessary limitations in the claims, it is useful to avoid such language from the outset. Moreover, language relating to implanting or providing the device into the body should be, as far as possible, limited, and instead the invention should be described in terms of the device per se, in isolation of the body, so that the surgical “step” cannot be considered as essential.

Final comments

In summary, the above decision brings some uncertainty in this particular area of European patent law. However, it serves as a useful reminder to include both functional and structural “claim-like” statements in the application as filed, in order to provide suitable auxiliary positions in prosecution and opposition proceedings whilst avoiding unnecessary limitations in the claims.

 

[1] Article 53(c), first sentence, of the EPC – https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar53.html

[2] Art 53(c), second sentence, of the EPC – https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar53.html

[3] Enlarged Board of Appeal Decision G1/07 – https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf

[4] Board of Appeal Decision T1731/12 – https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t121731du1.pdf

[5] Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, I-B, 4.3.4(c) – https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_b_4_3_4_c.htm

 

This article was prepared by HGF Patent Attorney Elliot Stephens.

Latest updates

IP Ingredients: Summer Case Law Review 2025

As the British summer swings once again between sunburn and showers, it’s a great time to take stock of what the first half of the year has delivered by way …

Read article

Celebrating exam success at HGF!

We are once again delighted to share that our colleagues have achieved success in their recent exams! Their dedication, perseverance, and commitment to professional development have paid off, and we …

Read article

Is the Supreme Court denial in Thatcher’s case a fatal blow against lookalikes?

The dispute between Thatcher’s Cider Company and Aldi Stores Limited has been long running and has sparked legal controversy along the way. On 4th June 2025 the Supreme denied Aldi …

Read article

HGF ranked among Europe’s top patent firms in IP STARS Patent Rankings 2025

HGF has once again made a bold mark in the latest Managing IP Stars 2025 firm rankings, with top-tier recognition across multiple jurisdictions for our patent expertise. This year’s results …

Read article

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has today issued its decision in seminal case G1/24

G1/24, described as one of the most important cases in decades, relates to how claims of patents are to be interpreted by the Boards of Appeal and, by extension, all …

Read article

UPC’s Hamburg Local Division provides guidance on the extent to which a patent may be used as its own “lexicon”

Agfa NV v Gucci & Anors. [UPC_CFI_278/2023] – Hamburg Local Division of the UPC (Klepsch, Schilling, Sarlin) – 30 April 2025 While we await a decision on G1/24 from the …

Read article

MevoCem Nominated for the Earthshot Prize by CIPA

We’re delighted to share that our client, Material Evolution, has been nominated by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) for the globally renowned Earthshot Prize, in recognition of their …

Read article

Agritech Thymes: Agritech 2030: Forecasting the Technologies Poised to Transform Farming

Whilst yet to recover to the levels of 2011-2021, where capital invested in agritech increased 20-fold, investor funding in agritech is starting to pick up, and 2025 is set to …

Read article