Nestlé has lost a case at the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding a bacterial stabilizer. The EPO’s Board of Appeal upheld a decision to revoke Nestlé’s patent for a composition containing a bacterial stabilizer, which is used to extend the shelf life of food products.
The patent in question, EP2467025, relates to a composition containing a bacterial stabilizer, specifically a combination of sodium chloride, sodium nitrite, and a bacteriocin-producing strain of Lactococcus lactis. The composition is designed to inhibit the growth of bacteria, particularly E. coli and Listeria, in food products.
The opposition division of the EPO initially revoked the patent in 2019, citing lack of novelty and inventive step. Nestlé appealed the decision, arguing that the composition was novel and inventive. However, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision to revoke the patent, finding that the composition was not sufficiently distinguished from prior art.
The Board of Appeal noted that the prior art disclosed similar compositions containing sodium chloride, sodium nitrite, and bacteriocin-producing strains of Lactococcus lactis. The board found that the combination of these ingredients was obvious to a person skilled in the art and did not require inventive skill.
Nestlé argued that the specific combination of ingredients in the patent was unique and provided a synergistic effect. However, the Board of Appeal found that this argument was not supported by sufficient evidence. The board concluded that the patent did not meet the requirements of novelty and inventive step, and therefore, the patent was revoked.
The revocation of the patent means that Nestlé no longer has exclusive rights to the composition, and other companies may be able to use similar compositions without infringing on Nestlé’s patent. This decision may have significant implications for the food industry, as companies may be able to develop similar products without fear of patent infringement.
It is worth noting that the EPO’s decision is final and cannot be appealed further. Nestlé may need to consider alternative strategies to protect its intellectual property and maintain its competitive edge in the market. The company may also need to reassess its research and development efforts to identify new and innovative solutions that can be protected by patents.