Case T 0070/23 concerns a patent EP 2 903 638 held by GSK relating to an "immunogenic composition", which is a cocktail of conjugated capsular saccharides from Streptococcus agalactiae (GBS). The patent holder (GSK) argued that the product claim, while not explicitly mentioning therapeutic efficacy, should be interpreted as being limited by its efficacy as a vaccine, a definition provided within the patent’s description. The opponent (Pfizer) contested this interpretation.
The legal dispute centered on the interpretation of patent claims. The core issue was whether a product claim, which describes a clear technical feature, should nonetheless be limited by a therapeutic efficacy mentioned in the description but not explicitly included in the claim language. The Board of Appeal had to rule on the extent to which the description can be used to influence the meaning of seemingly clear claims, an issue that was also addressed in the later, landmark decision G 1/24 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
The Board of Appeal ruled that product claims should not be interpreted as encompassing therapeutic effects unless explicitly stated in the claim language. The Board found that definitions provided in the description do not override clear claim language. In line with the principles later established in G 1/24, the claim was therefore not considered to be limited by the therapeutic efficacy. Since the invention, without this limitation, was not considered to have an inventive step over the prior art, the patent was revoked. The judgment reinforces the principle that claims define the scope of protection and that the description cannot be used to redefine the claims.
