The first definition of the term "therapy" was given in T144/83 (OJ1986,301). According to this decision, therapy relates to the treatment of a disease in general or to a curative treatment in the narrow sense as well as the alleviation of the symptoms of pain and suffering.
In T81/84 (OJ1988,207) the board found that the concept of therapy should not be construed narrowly. It would be impossible and undesirable to distinguish between basic and symptomatic therapy, i.e. healing or cure and mere relief. The board concluded that irrespective of the origin of pain, discomfort or incapacity, its relief, by the administration of an appropriate agent, was to be construed as therapy or therapeutic use within the meaning of Art.52(4)EPC1973.
In T24/91 (OJ1995,512) the board observed that the term "therapy" was not restricted to curing a disease and removing its causes. Rather, this term covered any treatment which was designed to cure, alleviate, remove or lessen the symptoms of, or prevent or reduce the possibility of contracting any disorder or malfunction of the human or animal body. The board found that the claimed process removed, by treatment of the patient's eye, the symptoms of myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism and was therefore a therapeutic treatment. In T979/23 too, the board noted that treatment by therapy does not per se require the disease to be completely cured or even that its cause be addressed, but does encompass the alleviation of symptoms (see also T1779/21).
In T752/17, the board referred to the definition of "therapy" in T24/91 and held that contrary to the view taken by the appellant, there was no requirement for a purpose-restricted product claim pursuant to Art.54(5)EPC to recite a disease or pathological condition.
In T2420/13 the board stated that a "therapeutic treatment" required some intervention on the body or body part to be treated which caused a therapeutic effect.
In T1075/09 the patent proprietor had argued that the feature had been part of the definition of the patient group and could not be considered to be a claimed therapeutic method. The board held that claim1 was worded in such a way that it taught the direct administration of FSH to the patient for inducing folliculogenesis because the feature "and wherein folliculogenesis is induced by the administration of FSH" was not covered by the Swiss-type format. Therefore this feature constituted a therapeutical method of its own involving a direct physical intervention on the human body.
InT944/15, the invention, as described, related to a data processing method for controlling a process of monitoring the position of at least a part of a patient's body during a radiation treatment by means of a computer. The appellant argued that the invention was a data processing method confined to the computer, i.e. a computer-implemented method. In the board's view, the second leg of the provision in Art.53(c)EPC refers essentially to products and held that a computer program, as defined in the claimed invention was not such a product. In providing protection for a computer program which is designed to implement a method of treatment, de facto protection is provided for the method of treatment, because running the program is using the method. As the method is excluded, so the computer program should also be excluded: even if indirectly conferred, a protection for a method of treatment goes against the ratio legis of Art.53(c)EPC (G1/07, point3 of the Reasons).
