EPO clarifies what medical methods are excluded from patent protection

Author: Dr Julie Myint |

26 Oct 2020


European Patent Office (EPO) guidance on what methods of medical treatment can be protected was given just over 10 years ago (15 February 2010) on a case filed in 2007 (G 0001/07). We were advised a medical method which “encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires professional medical expertise to be carried out and which entails a substantial health risk” (even when carried out with the required professional care and expertise) is excluded from patentability. The exclusion operates via Article 53(c) EPC which prevents the patenting of methods for the treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy.

Following this guidance, patent attorneys have been mindful to ensure any patent applications to protect medical methods did not include any step practised on the human body.

More recently, granted patent EP 1,901,676 was opposed and whilst the opponent withdrew from the opposition the EPO decided to continue with the proceedings of its own motion, which it is entitled to do, and so re-visit the Article 53(c) EPC exclusion.

In this granted patent, the claimed invention concerned dentistry and in particular replacing tooth parts using dental impressions and curable tooth replacement material. Whilst the claims of the granted patent focused on a method involving the production of the replacement tooth part from two complimentary impressions, the EPO decided that the method described in the application as a whole actually involved work on a patient’s tooth before the impressions could be made and the replacement tooth created. This meant that the preparation of the patient’s tooth formed part of the protected method, whether or not it was an explicit part of the claims. It also meant the claimed method involved a physical intervention on the human body (a tooth) clearly requiring professional medical expertise (a dentist).  In these circumstances, the EPO ruled the Art. 53(c) EPC exclusion applied because the claimed invention necessarily involved a step of treatment by surgery.

This decision, given on 31 July 2020, indicates when considering the Art. 53(c) EPC exclusion, the EPO places emphasis on the actual working of the medical method as described in the entire patent document (rather than the steps mentioned in the patent claims per se), surgery is interpreted broadly and so encompasses tooth preparation, and the reference in the 2010 decision to a substantial health risk operates on a very shallow threshold.

The lesson to be learned is that one needs to be able to operate a medical method in isolation of, or without tampering with, a human body for it to be patented.

If you would like more information, please get in touch.

"Andrew lived up to our expectations, helping us take a very hard negotiation over the line. We enjoyed working with him and would do so again. I would definitely recommend him to organisations trying to navigate IP licensing negotiations"


"Driven, dedicated and knowledgeable in the whole spectrum of work covering commercialisation of technology"

UK University Senior Tech Transfer

"Their communications are clear and always in good time for action to be taken. They have established a good network of foreign associates and we have recently had successful filings in the USA, Japan and China without a need for extensive office action and its associated costs."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"The work carried out by Symbiosis has always been of high quality. The team have a wealth of experience and understanding in life sciences, which means they are able to provide advice on patent filing from the earliest stage right through prosecution."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"Mark Hoggins consistently delivers excellent service and detailed and informed responses to examiners, and helps clients understand each step and grow in their understanding of the IP protection process."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"Lee Samuel readily understands technology and consistently demonstrates thorough knowledge of patent law, great attention to detail and efficient organisational skills, leading to successful grants."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"Vast experience in commercialising science and technology"

Senior UK Patent Attorney

"Cardiff University has a longstanding relationship with Symbiosis IP and we have always experienced a consistently high quality range of IP services. We particularly appreciate the ability to provide bespoke advice for academic, TTO or industry audiences as appropriate and this has contributed significantly to our translational successes across the life sciences portfolio."

Rhodri Turner
Senior Technology Transfer Officer, Cardiff University

"Andrew gave us the confidence that the final terms agreed were fair and in line with the current best practice"

UK University Head of Tech Transfer

"It is not an exaggeration to state that our confidence in Rob and Symbiosis is such that the strategic direction of our company has been IP-led at all times."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"It is a privilege to work with Symbiosis."

Prof. Richard Ross, CSO
Asterion Limited

"The service provided by Symbiosis is personal, efficient and highly professional."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"Our two companies collaborate very well together to optimise the commercial benefits of the Glycologic Limited portfolio of activities."

Richard Tester
Managing Director, Glycologic Limited

"Symbiosis maximises the value of IP generated by our inventors in a cost effective and efficient manner that meets our commercial objectives."

Martin Whitaker
CEO, Diurnal

"Symbiosis dives deep into the science and data and then gives an excellent assessment of the potential for the patent to be granted and the value of said patent."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

"One of those rare breeds who manage to combine considerable technical expertise with a keen business sense"

Senior Leader, Corporate

"Result oriented, very responsive, a value creator and a person with a clear vision and strategy"

Senior Corporate Counsel

"Excellent technical licensing and deal-making skills, [a] can-do attitude and an inherent sense of value to each assignment"

Senior Leader, Corporate

"Julie always asks the right questions and grasps the heart of the invention easily. Julie expresses herself very clearly and it is straightforward to communicate with her, in both written and oral form. She presents commercial strategies, thanks to her long experience in the field and concrete exposure to challenges that she has been able to overcome."

IAM Patent 2022 Client Interview

Our use of cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. These will be set only if you accept.

For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page. Cookie Control Link Icon

Necessary cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.