< Back to latest news & events

Articles

The Antibody Series #3 | Antibody code names in claims: why “ACZ885” is not sufficient to define the antibody

January 2026

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions. In this case, they examined a claim that identified an antibody by an internal code name.

The real case: Your team is working with a clinical antibody known internally by a code name. You draft claims for a new indication and put this code name in the claim because, internally, there is no doubt about the molecule being targeted.

Claim 1 : (alternative claim)
“1. A medicament for use in the treatment of an auto-inflammatory syndrome in a patient in need thereof, the medicament comprising the human IL-1beta binding antibody ACZ885 and wherein said auto-inflammatory syndrome is Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Associated Periodic Syndrome (TRAPS), and wherein said antibody is parenterally administered at a dose between 0.1-50 mg of said antibody per kg body weight of the patient.”

Beginning of the story: Lack of clarity under Article 84 EPC. This was not the main issue in the first instance. On appeal, the question became simple and decisive: can a third party know, from reading the patent, what exactly “ACZ885” is?

The BoA’s teaching: An internal code name is not sufficient to define a claim, unless the file gives it a precise and unambiguous technical meaning. In this case, partial elements, such as sequence fragments and a reference to another document, were not sufficient to clearly identify the antibody covered by the claim.

Practical drafting tip: if you use an antibody code name in a claim, explicitly link it to a verifiable definition in the application, e.g., complete VH and VL or complete heavy and light chains with SEQ IDs, or a clearly identified combination of CDRs, or an epitope and an objective test with a quantified threshold, otherwise avoid the code name in the claim and only claim what a third party can verify.

Disclaimer : This is not legal advice; it is merely practical guidance to be incorporated early on in the filing strategy.

Source : ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T094116.20210216.

Latest updates

The FoodTech Series #1 | Medicament, functional food, nutritive product in the same claim 1: when your own examples no longer support the “improvement”

            The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions; in this case, they ruled on an opposition …

Read article

A New Era for AI Patents in the UK: Supreme Court Aligns with the EPO

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) vs Comptroller General of Patents, a decision which serves to significantly change the way …

Read article
Event - 23rd - 25th March 2026

HGF are Gold Sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026

HGF are proud sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026, taking place from 23-25 March 2026 at the Pullman Paris Montparnasse. Bringing together patent pioneers, in-house leaders and private practice specialists, IPBC …

Event details
Event - 8th - 11th February 2026

AUTM Meeting 2026

We are attending the AUTM Annual Meeting from 8–11 February, a flagship event bringing together technology transfer professionals from across the globe. AUTM connects innovators, universities, and industry leaders to …

Event details

The Antibody Series #5 | Epitope-defined antibody claims: when “binds to this epitope” becomes a risk of insufficiency

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews decisions made at the EPO; here, they reviewed an appeal in opposition proceedings after the revocation …

Read article

The Deity Shoes case: a question of design activity and the constraints on a designer’s freedom

The footwear brand Deity Shoes sought to enforce their Community Design rights, both registered and unregistered, against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. However, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design found fault …

Read article

The Antibody Series #4 | pH points in antibody claims: when “same pH ” becomes an addition of matter

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions; in this case, they reviewed a revocation in opposition of a patent relating to …

Read article

The Antibody Series #3 | Antibody code names in claims: why “ACZ885” is not sufficient to define the antibody

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions. In this case, they examined a claim that identified an antibody by an internal …

Read article