• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BPatG: Procedure for aphrodisiac is therapeutic procedure

18. September 2020

The patent application for a process for an aphrodisiac and for enhancing the aphrodisiac effect of artichokes was rejected by the German BPatG – because a therapeutic procedure is not patentable. But is an aphrodisiac effect a healing treatment?

Aphrodisiac a therapeutic procedure?

aphrodisiac and artichokeIn any case, the patent applicant argued that the process according to the invention also covers a field of application outside a curative treatment. That is to that extent relevant in this unusual case, because the patent application as procedure for the therapeutic treatment of the human body is opposed to the exclusion reason of the § 2a exp. 1 PatG.

The patent application in question, 10 2014 006 637.1, was filed with the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) in 2017 under the title “Method for effecting an idiot-proof aphrodisiac on an inexpensive base/reaction agent”. The patent claim specifies the method and in detail describes a “method for enhancing the aphrodisiac effect of artichoke, characterized in that after the consumption of one or two fresh, cooked artichoke(s), half a bar to a whole bar of milk chocolate is to be eaten about 3 to 15 minutes afterwards”.

The patent applicant based his appeal against the refusal of the patent registration on these statements. He argued that an aphrodisiac is not necessarily a curative treatment and referred among other things to the literary prose and day songs of Wolfram von Eschenbach, a German poet from the 12th century.

The fact that artichokes have digestive and metabolism stimulating effects does not represent the purpose of the inventive process, explained the creative patent applicant. The process is inventive because there has not yet been any reason to administer artichoke and milk chocolate in the claimed dose and chronological sequence. Moreover, the application documents contained no reference to a curative treatment.

Impairment of well-being is also not patentable

But the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) rejected the appeal. Therapeutic procedures are not defined exclusively with regard to the treatment of diseases, the court decided and explained § 2a (1) No. 2 PatG. All procedures that serve to protect or improve human or animal life fall under this paragraph. In addition to the maintenance or restoration of health and the alleviation of suffering, they may also have the aim of influencing functional disorders or functional weaknesses or increasing physical performance, the BPatG described.

In addition, the patent application mentioned the treatment of impairment of well-being as the purpose of the claimed procedure; this too falls under the exclusion reason of § 2a (1) PatG, the court decided. In addition, according to the patent description, the individual process steps should stimulate the digestive juices, especially of the liver and bile, for a rapid metabolism of the active substances. However, if therapeutic and non-therapeutic effects form an inseparable unit – as in this case – the process as a whole is not patentable, the BPatG ruled.

The patent applicant’s attempt to restrict the invention to the non-medical field also failed. Because since the only claimed method serves exclusively for therapeutic treatment, the prohibition of patenting according to § 2a (1) No. 2 PatG cannot be circumvented with a disclaimer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed by the BPatG and the refusal of the patent registration was confirmed.

Any question about German or European Patent protection?

Our lawyers are experienced in patent law and all fields of IP rights, national and international law. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sources:

Judgement of BPatG, 11 W (pat) 29/18

Image:

Three-shots | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconcurative treatment,  § 2a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 PatG,  disclaimer,  Patent Application,  patent registration,  aphrodisiac,  process for aphrodisiac,  therapeutic process,  reason for exclusion,  artichoke,  BPatG

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]