206Heo8224 Decision of Refusal (Special Provisions)

Ep, Hopman - Drosta (F. Hoffoffmann - Lache AG)

Switzerland

Representative flurlin Clicker, nisher labelling

(Fridin Klaus nier, Denise Strebel)

Attorney Lee Dong-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant

Attorney Park Jae-dae, Counsel for the plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Litigation Performers, Ethicals, Ethicals

May 22, 2007

June 28, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on August 7, 2006 on the case No. 2005 Won3245 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Application invention of this case

(1) The title of invention: Polyethyl ethyl terluene terine - The purpose of use of alph and albin for the treatment of chronic terrosiss.

(2) The filing date/the filing date of the priority claim (the priority claim date)/ the application number: December 6, 200 / June 8, 1998 (the European Specialized Permit Authority)/200 - 70130/703

(3) Applicant: The plaintiff

(4) The scope of claims (which has been finally amended by the amendment, such as a specification, etc. on May 19, 2005)

1. PEG - PEG - PEG - Q2A - A combination of Q2A, Linn, and chemicals for treating chronic C infection: chemical formula 12 A, R and R are ethyl respectively; X are NH; n and n are 420 or 520 respectively.

2. Claims 2 through 10. (Elimination)

B. Summary of comparable Invention 1 (A.C. 1)

The name published on April 24, 1996 in the European Patent Gazette No. 707855, published on April 24, 1996, is "the Cooperative Treatment Act for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C," and the main contents are as shown in Attached 1.

The name published on December 3, 1997 in the European Patent Gazette No. 80996, which was published on December 3, 1997, is "a combination of zins", and the main contents are as shown in Attached No. 2.

C. (1) On December 6, 200, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant patent application with respect to the invention. On February 16, 2005, the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rendered a decision of refusal on the ground that the instant patent application did not have inventive step compared to the cited inventions. The Plaintiff filed a request for a trial against the said decision of refusal to seek revocation, and on May 19, 2005, finally submitted an amendment, such as the specification, etc. on the ground that the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office did not find any matter to reverse the said decision of refusal after re-examination in accordance with the pre-examination order on July 21, 2005. (2) The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board dismissed the instant patent application on the ground that the instant patent application invention did not have inventive step compared with the cited inventions.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul No. 1, 2, 4, and all purport of the pleading

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision asserted by the Plaintiff

A. The patent application invention of this case is a chronic-pactic therapy containing polyethylenegol (PEG) - Human PEG (IFN) - 2A combination (hereinafter “PEG-IFN-2A combination”) and ribin as an essential ingredient. On the other hand, the patent application invention of this case is a chronic-pactic therapy containing ribin as an essential ingredient. On the other hand, comparable invention 1 has a chronic-pactic therapy but it is different in that the PEG is used together with iFN-A which is not combined with the PEG, and comparable invention 2 is not simply a PEG-IFN-2A combination and can be used as a composition or a chronic-pactic infection. Accordingly, the patent application invention of this case differs from the composition and effect of the comparable inventions.

B. The cited Invention 2 states that the PEG-IFN-. 2A combinations reduces the activation of air virus which is essential for the treatment of chronic hepatitiss, and it is not easy for a person with ordinary knowledge in this technology (hereinafter referred to as a "stever") to exchange the PEG-IFN-IFN-2A combinations of comparable inventions 1 to develop chronic hepatitiss in order to develop a treatment system for chronic hepatitiss. Thus, the claimed invention in the instant case cannot be easily made by a party simply combining the comparable inventions.

3. Determination

A. Whether the invention in this case is non-obviousness (1) of the invention in this case (1) the summary of the invention in this case (Evidence A No. 1, No. 4) Roster loan (IFN) has been used for treatment of various diseases, such as the treatment of cancer species, as a protein with antivirity, antivirity, and immunominrity, and it has been widely known that there was an IFN-A or IFN-A-IFN-IFN-IFN for treatment of chronic hepatitis, but these methods could not have satisfactory treatment effects. The invention in this case is characterized by providing chronic hepatitiss by combining the combinations of PEG - IFN-2A.

(2)Preparation for the technical field and purpose;

The purpose of the instant patent application invention is to provide a chronic hepatitis treatment system using PEG-IFN - 2A combinations of ribane as active ingredients. The purpose of the instant patent application invention is to provide a method of treating chronic hepatitis C infection by administering parallels with IFN A and ribine, and thus, the instant patent application invention and comparable invention 1 are identical and are common in the technical field in that the instant patent application invention and comparable invention 1 provide medicines for treating chronic hepatitis C infections. The comparable invention 2 is ordinarily used in the treatment of PEG-IFN - IFN - The complex is ordinarily used in the treatment of communicable diseases and infectious diseases, and ordinarily has an excellent physical and heat stability, large melting degree, increased circulars, and hours of stay in the blood, and is to provide a method of treating chronic hepatitis C infections. However, the technical purpose of the instant patent application invention is not clearly different from that of the instant patented invention in the light of the detailed description of the instant patent application invention.

(3) Preparation for composition (A) is prepared for composition of the invention in the instant case and the comparable invention 1, the uribin of the instant patent application invention is identical to the uribine of the comparable invention 1, and the uribin of the instant patent application invention is a chemical manufactured in a pharmaceutically acceptable way. Thus, there is no difference between the uribin of the instant patent application invention and the uribin of the comparable invention 1, which are not the response composition of the comparable invention 1. (b) The instant patent application invention is composed of active ingredients other than ribin, and the chemical PEG - IFN-.

2A. On the other hand, comparable inventions 1 contains an PEG - A, while comparable inventions 2. However, comparable inventions 2, there are differences between the chemical formula 1 and PEG - IFN - a (to be desirable) of the invention of this case, such as chemical formula 2. A.

(C) LFN 1’s IFN - A’s PEG- IFN - IFN - BA’s easy exchange in comparable inventions 2

In the specification of the patent application invention of this case, the background technology explains the comparable invention 1 as the background technology of the patent application invention of this case, and states that "PEG-IFN-a combination method of the combination and ribin may be more effective than the combination method of IFN-A and ribin." The detailed description of the invention introduces comparable invention 2 by means of forming a combination of PEG-IFN-A-a (in the case of IFN-A, the number of circular reflectrs and the period of stay in the bloodline has increased, the removal rate has decreased, the removal rate has decreased, and the activation in the living body has increased.

Therefore, this invention is recognized that the combination of PEG - IFN - A is transferred from comparable invention 1 to comparable invention 2 instead of IFN - IFN - BF - IFN - IFN - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - can be easily used for liver infection 2, based on the specifications of comparable invention 2 and the specification of the application invention of this case, as it is possible to find it easy for the IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - IF - will have a more active content than those indicated in the specification of comparable invention 2.

B. The claim 10. (IFN-A) of comparable Invention 2, the claim(s) of the comparable Invention 10. (IFN-A and IFN-A) is a virus disease (refer to the evidence Nos. 5 and 6).

In addition, the detailed description of the invention is written that "PEG - IFN-2A combined body" means "PEG - IFN - Qs combined body" and each description contains that PEG - PEG - Qs combined reduces the activation of air viruses in human base (invi, in the test tube). However, in full view of the whole purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 8, 10, and 11, in the case of proteG in the case of protegn, the activation in the test officer can be found to have reduced, but the activation in the living body increases, and even in the detailed description of the invention in the specification of comparable inventions 2, the effect of proteGrization is accompanied by one man-made (invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, invi, in the test tube.

The phrase "(2) 15 to 19," is written as the decrease in the active nature of comparable invention 2, and the phrase "PEG - IFN - A 15 to 19, in the claims of comparable invention 2, stating the effect of reducing the active nature of airvirability in the test tube of the combined body, etc., as the party who intends to develop the treatment system for chronic hepatitis C, it is not sufficient to keep in mind the PEG-IFN-A - PEG- IFN - 2A, launched in comparable invention 2, and therefore, it cannot be easy for the party, therefore, the plaintiff's above argument is not reasonable.

The table 1 of the specification of the instant invention is: (A) the effect of comparable invention 1 is recognized as a combination of 34 or 36 of the IFI using a chronic virus infection; (b) the rate of removal of virus at the end of 48 weeks and the rate of removal after treatment (24 weeks) is compared and assessed; (c) the rate of removal of the instant invention is 66% and 53% in cases of the instant invention covered by the combination of PEG - IFN - IFN - (the specification is written as “IFN A”; (d) the rate of removal of 51% and 4GN - BGN - IF - IF - BG - IF - BG - BG - BG - BG - BG - BG - BG - BO - BO - BO - BO - BO - BO - BO - BO - BO, respectively, are measured more than those indicated.

v. n.

(5) Arrangement of the results of preparation

Therefore, the patent application invention of this case has the same technical field as the comparable invention 1 and its technical field, and there is no difference between the comparable invention 2 and the technical field, and from the composition of comparable invention 1, which is used by combining lFN with lFN-A as a treatment product for chronic hepatitis 3, it is difficult to recognize the complexity of composition because it can be easily displayed in the comparable invention 2 instead of a combination of lFN-IFN-2A, and it cannot be said that there is a significant effect. Thus, the patent application invention of this case is not non-obviousness as it can not be easily described by the comparison of the comparable inventions.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, although the Plaintiff’s remaining argument on the patent application for a specific type of medicine is a publicly known type of medicine, it is not true that the physical effect of the Plaintiff’s use of the same type of medicine is achieved when it applied such a similar type of medicine. As such, if a modified form of medicine, which is suitable for other medicine, has been manufactured successfully, the invention value should be recognized. The Plaintiff’s above assertion can be applied to cases where a completely different form of medicine exists or a similar type of medicine, which is similar to the publicly known type of medicine, but its effect is different from that of the patent application for a specific type of medicine. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the patent application for a specific type of medicine in comparison with the patent application for a specific type of medicine was not indicated in the foregoing patent application for a specific type of medicine, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the patent application for a new type of medicine, which is identical to the publicly known type of medicine, has no reason to view that the patent application for a specific type of medicine is identical to that of the instant invention, for example, IFN-IFNN-specific, for instance.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the patent application invention of this case cannot be registered without inventive step compared to the combination of comparable inventions. The trial decision of this case was just because it was consistent with this conclusion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge's seat

Judges Dora-ok

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Attached 1. Invention 1

(1) Name: Cooperative therapy for chronic hepatitis;

(2) Main contents

In the previous cases, human ters for the treatment of chronic hepatitiss - The sole treatment method under paragraph (1) is ordinarily available.

The treatment effect is low, the treatment effect is found to be inappropriate, even though it has been used as such, and a page is not desirable.

L L. A - The combination treatment of drugs and L.S. has been proposed, but still the dose of drugs has a high level.

There was a problem that there was a side effect such as symptoms or an empty blood.

For this reason, ribin and turgs used for chronic C-malves treatment - the administration or administration of a

by limiting the period of time to remove or reduce side effects related to these compounds;

The treatment method is proposed. In other words, it is a method for treating chronic hepatitiss.

In other words, effective ruptures - A, and chronic C, for treating chronic hepatitiss;

- Luriviinn and Rostern - Related to the administration of x, in combination with the effective quantity of Lbainnin

(1) include any process that does not result in a side effect or in a substantial decrease of such effect.

have been initiated.

Attached 2. Invention 2

(1) Name: a combination of zines

(2) Main contents

Bioly active PEG - IFN - a table with the following chemical formula:

In the following formula, R and R are independently low-level eggs; X is NH or0; n;

‘In’ is a quota of 600 to 1500, as desirable, IFN - A is IFN - 2A, and n

Department n 420 or 520 -

PEG - PEG - InternationalFN - Q combineds not attached with the PEG, compared to Q, increased circulars and serums

A person shall be appointed.

The time of stay in the country, reduced immunity, reduced rate of removal, and increased activation of resistance simultaneously;

PEG - IFN - A combination with each other, with the activation of antivirity in the reduced test tube, and with each other’s training disease;

IFN- - For the same use as that of a A, specified short-term clocks, etc.

PEGGization may have a decrease of living and non-living activity accompanied by the divesability in a strong living body.

this commencement shall take place.