Compugen’s anti-PVRIG patent upheld by the EPO

Opposition Division ruling supports the use of immunotherapy patent | Highlights the significance of plausibility in patent evaluation following G 2/21.

The European Patent Office (EPO) Opposition Division has upheld the claims of Compugen's anti-PVRIG antibodies patent, granting the use of these antibodies for cancer treatment.

The Opposition Division assessed the validity of Compugen’s patent EP3258951B1, titled Anti-PVRIG Antibodies and Methods of Use, after oppositions were filed by pharmaceutical giant GSK and an undisclosed opponent represented by a third party.

Patent EP3258951B1 covers anti-PVRIG antibodies for cancer treatments. Anti-PVRIG antibodies are ‘checkpoint inhibitors’, used in immunotherapy. These are “block proteins that stop the immune system from attacking the cancer cells” according to Cancer Research UK.

The Opposition Division ruled in favour of maintaining the broad claims of Compugen's patent in an oral proceedings hearing on July 11, 2023.

However, both opposing parties have the right to appeal this decision.

The matter of 'plausibility' was a key aspect in this case and had recently been examined in the EPO’s G2/21 ruling in March, 2023.

Compugen ‘delighted with decision’

Compugen's president and CEO, Anat Cohen-Dayag said: “We are delighted with the decision of the opposition division of the EPO ruling in favour of maintenance of the broad claims in the patent as granted, supporting our patent strategy in novel target discovery.”

Cohen-Dayag expanded on the significance of the ruling, emphasising the importance of the PVRIG immune checkpoint target, which was discovered by Compugen. PVRIG, alongside TIGIT and PD-1, forms a crucial part of the DNAM-1 axis, she explained.

“Compugen's data suggests that in certain patients and in certain tumour types there is a need to block all three pathways in the DNAM-1 axis and we are currently leading the way in evaluating the triple blockade of PVRIG in combination with TIGIT and PD-1 in two proof of concept studies in tumours typically not responsive to immunotherapy, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer and platinum resistant ovarian cancer,” added Cohen-Dayag.

Compugen was represented by Markus Rieck, partner and patent attorney at Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft, and Thomas Wolter, partner and patent attorney at Mewburn Ellis.

Plausibility determined in G2/21

The second part of the G2/21 decision from the EPO determined plausibility.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal under the European Patent Convention (EPC) clarified the use of post-published evidence to establish a technical effect in patents.

The Technical Board of Appeal’s questions regarding evidence assessment and the concept of plausibility in inventive step evaluations paved the way for the hearings.

In the second part of its decision, the board clarified that plausibility is not a separate legal concept or requirement in the EPC, issuing the order that “a patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention”.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.