European Union: EPO Practice

A Strict View of Priority in the UK’s Court of Appeal

A recent decision in the United Kingdom suggests that the strict priority approach applied in the European Patent Office (EPO) Boards of Appeal will also be enforced in that jurisdiction against patentees relying on the filing dates of earlier applications.  The Court of Appeal in Hospira UK Generics Ltd. v. Novartis AG, [2013] EWCA Civ. 1663 (Dec. 19, 2013), held that a claim directed to use of a specific compound to treat osteoporosis at a certain dosage was not entitled to the earlier priority date of a U.S. patent application, notwithstanding that all the claim elements appear to be disclosed in the U.S. application, when read as a whole. 

UK Priority Law

Applicants may benefit from the filing date of a foreign application under the terms of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.  In the United Kingdom, Section 5 of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977) provides for reliance on an earlier priority date.  The corresponding provision of the European Patent Convention (EPC) is Article 87(1).  While Section 5 PA 1977 uses different language from Article 87 EPC, the Court of Appeal has held that the UK statute and the EPC article mean the same thing.1

Article 87(1) EPC governs priority in this context, stating that

[a]ny person who has duly filed, in or for . . . any State party to the Paris Convention . . . , an application for a patent . . . shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of  the first application (emphases added).

Thus, under Article 87(1) EPC, an applicant's claim will benefit from a right of priority of an earlier application if for the "same invention."  See id.  Importantly, this has been interpreted by the Enlarged Board in G02/98 to mean that priority is effective "only if the skilled person can derive the subject-matter of the claim directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the previous application as a whole."2  This standard requires, at minimum, that all elements from the claim be disclosed, explicitly or implicitly, in the earlier application.  See id

The UK courts have also recognized the significance of G02/98, finding its approach not inconsistent with leading UK decisional law on priority.3  On the one hand, in Pharmacia Corp. v. Merck & Co., [2002] R.P.C. 41, priority was lost by narrowing down from the disclosure of the priority document so that the invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from it.  On the other hand, in Beloit Technologies Inc. v. Valmet Paper Machinery Inc., [1995] R.P.C. 7005, priority was lost by overgeneralizing from the disclosure of the priority document.4                


The patent-at-issue in Hospira UK Generics was European Patent (UK) 1 296 689, belonging to Novartis.  [2013] EWCA Civ. 1663, ¶ 1.  The Novartis patent related to the use of a particular member of the bisphosphonate class of drugs.  Id.  Specifically, Novartis's claim 7 claimed the use of a zoledronate medicine for the treatment of osteoporosis and adapted for intravenous administration in a unit dosage form which comprises from about 2 to 10 mg of zoledronate, administered about once a year.  Id.  Claim 7 covered Novartis's commercial drug product ACLASTA, a successful, once-yearly infusion product.   Id. ¶ 3.  Claim 7 was argued to have the priority date of an earlier U.S. application filed June 20, 2000.  Id. ¶ 2.  The main issue with respect to this claim was whether the disclosure in the U.S. application contained the subject matter, because, if not, the parties agreed that an intervening publication would be invalidating.  Id. ¶ 3. 

The High Court held that, although the elements of claim 7 were disclosed in the U.S. application, "there was nothing to link the dosage sizes and intervals there claimed with the other features of the claims, such as treatment of osteoporosis and intravenous administration."  Id. ¶ 22.  Mr. Justice Arnold explained that

[t]he nearest one gets is the abstract, which links zoledronate, osteoporosis and six monthly administration, but does not mention intravenous administration . . . .  As for Example 5, this is limited to the intravenous administration of particular doses of zoledronate to post-menopausal osteoporosis patients six monthly and yearly . . . ."5

Since the court found that there was no linkage of the elements in the disclosure, Novartis was deemed to lack priority for claim 7 and the patent was invalidated in the first instance.6

Court of Appeal Decision

On appeal, Novartis argued that the High Court erred by reading the relevant passages in isolation.  Had the High Court properly read the disclosure as a whole, Novartis contended, it would have credited, inter alia, the "2-10 mg once a year" passage7 as containing a clear and unambiguous disclosure for the claim.  Id. ¶ 23.  Although the critical "2-10 mg once a year" passage does not expressly mention osteoporosis or a particular mode of administration, Novartis explained that treatment of osteoporosis was the very focus of the U.S. application.  Id.  Further, according to Novartis, intravenous administration appears throughout the disclosure as a principle route taught.  Id.          

For a unanimous court, however, Lord Justice Floyd succinctly stated "that the problem for Novartis in seeking to establish that claim 7 is entitled to priority from [the U.S. application] is that the disclosure . . . is either too general or too specific."  Id. ¶ 32.  When focused on the priority disclosure for zoledronate, the "'2-10 mg once a year' passage tells the skilled reader nothing about the dosage range for any particular method of administration . . . [and] does not tell the reader about dosage range for any particular condition, such as osteoporosis," meaning that it was too general to support priority.  Id.  When focused on the priority disclosure for mode of administration, "Example 5, on the other hand, is specific[,] . . . teach[ing] that 4 mg, once a year, administered intravenously to patients with post-menopausal osteoporosis is effective, but nothing about what other doses could be used at that dosage interval."  Id.         

The Court of Appeal acknowledged Novartis was correct that intravenous administration is one of the preferred methods of administrations in the disclosure and that osteoporosis is highlighted in the disclosure as one of the conditions targeted.  Id. ¶ 33.  But the Court of Appeal rejected the notion that the "2-10 mg once a year" passage must be read to teach that no matter how one administers zoledronate, and no matter what condition one administers it for, 2-10 mg is always suitable dosage range.  Id.  "To put it another way," if Novartis's theory were adopted, "it would be read as saying that this particular dosage range can be used independently of the condition being treated and independently of the method of administration."  Id. ¶ 35.  Instead, Lord Justice Floyd explained that a skilled person would read the "2-10 mg once a year" passage quite differently, "namely that, depending on the method of administration and the condition being treated, some doses within this range may be suitable."  Id. ¶¶ 35-36.  

Supporting this conclusion, the Court of Appeal cited the following: (1) the specification elsewhere expressly states that the dosage is dependent on method of administration and condition; (2) the skilled person knows from common general knowledge that dosage is critically dependent on method of administration and condition; (3) the fact that other dosage ranges are given in the patent could not be taken as saying that they were suitable for every condition and every means of administration; and (4) the expert testimony that a 2-10 mg would be "in play" for intravenous administration was "well short" of what is required, such that "nothing in the expert evidence . . . displace[d] the view that there is no disclosure in [the U.S. priority application] of using 2-10 mg zoledronate once a year by intravenous administration to treat osteoporosis."   Id. ¶¶ 36-40. 

Accordingly, claim 7 could not rely on the disclosure of the U.S. application and its earlier priority date.  The trial court's invalidity judgment was approved and the appeal was dismissed, with Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Tomlinson in accord.  Id. ¶¶ 42-44.


In fact, all elements of claim 7 were in some fashion disclosed in the U.S. priority application, as the Court of Appeal acknowledged.  See id. ¶ 33.  But these disparate elements were deemed insufficiently linked to the claimed invention to find it directly and unambiguously disclosed to a person of skill.  Novartis's main contention that "reading the document as a whole, one sees a disclosure of the whole package of claim 7," was scarcely addressed and did not persuade the court.  Id. (emphasis added).  The resulting strict approach to priority means that U.S. practitioners need to be aware in preparing priority filings that will be relied on later at the EPO or in EPO member states.  A clear linking statement for all claimed subject matter is now advisable to avoid losing priority.


1 See, e.g., Unilin Beheer BV v. Berry Floor NV, [2004] EWCA Civ. 1021, ¶ 39 ("The UK 1977 Patents Act, seeking to implement this, does so in the unhelpful mode of "re-write" rather than "copy out."  The provisions are to be found in s[ection] 5. . . . They are supposed to mean the same as Art. 87 . . . .").

2 Enlarged Board of Appeal in G02/98, [2002] EPOR 167 (deciding that the basic test to determine whether a claim is entitled to the date of a priority document is the same as the test of whether an amendment to an application satisfies the requirement of Art. 123(2) EPC).

3 Pharmacia Corp. v. Merck & Co., [2002] R.P.C. 41 (finding that the leading UK authority on priority, Biogen Inc. v. Medeva PLC, [1997] RPC 1, is consistent with G02/98, even though decided before).

4 See also Unilin Beheer, [2004] EWCA Civ. 1021.

5 Novartis AG v. Hospira UK Ltd., [2013] EWHC 516 (Pat.), ¶ 137.

6 Subsequent to the invalidity determination by the High Court, a preliminary injunction was granted by the Court of Appeal until the case could be reviewed.  See Novartis AG v. Hospira UK Ltd., [2013] EWCA Civ. 583.

7 U.S. Application No. 60/267,689 states that "a unit dose of from about 1 up to about 10 mg may be used.  For example . . . from about 1 to about 5 mg may be used for dosing once every 6 months; whereas a dose of from about 2 up to about 10 mg may be used for once a year dosing."

This article previously appeared in Full Disclosure Patent Prosecution Update, January 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
27 Nov 2017, Seminar, London, UK

Finnegan partner Anthony Tridico will present “U.S. Patent Case Law Update” at the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys’ annual Patent Case Law Review.

28 Nov 2017, Seminar, Milan, Italy

Finnegan partner John Paul will present “Internet of Things: Patent Liability, Enforcement and Licensing” and will join the Mock WIPO Mediation at International Technology Transfer—Licensing and ADR, co-hosted by Licensing Executives Society and World Intellectual Property Organization.

29 Nov 2017, Seminar, Tel Aviv, Israel

Finnegan is a platinum sponsor IVC Research Center’s start-up forum, “The Most Promising Start Ups for 2017 – A Synergy of Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Vision and IoT.”

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.