Patent decision

BL number

O/0135/25

Concerning rights in

GB2008221.0

Hearing Officer

Dr R Dinham

Decision date

14 February 2025

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Pauline McKay

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 sections 1(1)(a), 76(2), 14(3), 14(5)(b) and 14(5)(c)

Keywords

Added subject matter, Clarity, Novelty, Sufficiency, Support

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The application relates to alpha lipoic acid (ALA), its anti-inflammatory effects and its potential benefits in the treatment of diseases such as COVID-19.

The examiner maintained objections to novelty, added subject matter, sufficiency, support and clarity, and a decision on the papers was requested, with no skeleton arguments or amended claims provided. The applicant had contended that theft of a mobile phone may have led to unlawful disclosure that impacted upon the relevance of the prior art, but in the absence of evidence in this regard the hearing officer considered that the documents in question remained relevant for the purposes of s.2(2).

The hearing officer had difficulty in construing the claims in light of the lack of clarity therein, concluding that there were two possible interpretations, and went on to make an assessment of novelty for both interpretations, finding that regardless of how the claims were construed, they lacked novelty. The hearing officer also found that, as far as she could substantiate, there was not an amendment that did not constitute some degree of added matter. A cursory assessment of sufficiency and support concluded that it appeared that the requirements of the Act were not met here either. The application was refused.

Full decision O/0135/25 294Kb