Patents: what was filed, what was published, what was decided

Three different things are routinely confused in this debate: a patent application, its international publication, and a granted patent. They are separated here, with the documents.

1. Swiss application — verified by the office's own certificate

Office	Eidgenössisches Institut für Geistiges Eigentum (IGE \| IPI), Abteilung Patente, Bern
Application	Nr. 00506/20 (filing reference 11136-CH, office reference PAdmin Cr/00506/20)
Filing date	29 April 2020 (certificate dated 30 April 2020)
Title	«Pharmazeutische Zusammensetzung zur Behandlung von Covid-19» — pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of Covid-19
Applicant	Andreas Kalker, Läui 22, 9466 Sennwald
Representative	BOGENSBERGER Patent- & Markenbüro, Dr. Burkhard Bogensberger, Eschen (LI)
Class	A61K
Legal basis	Art. 46b Abs. 1 PatV — receipt certificate (Hinterlegungsbescheinigung)

Download the certificate (PDF, 397 KB)

What this document proves: that the application existed and was received by the Swiss federal institute on 29 April 2020, with that title and that applicant. Nothing more.

What it does not prove: that a patent was granted. This is a receipt certificate, not a grant.

2. International applications published by WIPO

WO2018185347A1	Pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of internal inflammations. Claims an aqueous chlorine dioxide solution of 5–1000 mg/L, substantially free of chlorate ions, hydrochloric acid and chlorine gas, for intestinal, ureteral and bladder lavage or for isotonic injection/infusion in systemic treatment.
WO2018185348A1	Pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of acute intoxication.
WO2018185346A1	Pharmaceutical composition for the treatment of infectious diseases.

Published applications are searchable in Patentscope and Espacenet. Publication of an application is not a grant: the legal status of each file must be checked in the register.

3. The refusal — what can be verified, and what cannot yet

The applicant states that the Swiss application was refused without any reason being given. This register has not been able to verify that statement, because the refusal decision has not been published here. Two observations that are useful:

No patent office in Europe refuses an application without issuing a written, reasoned decision. The grounds exist in the file even if they were never communicated clearly to the applicant.
They can be obtained: through the representative (Bogensberger), or by requesting inspection of the file (Akteneinsicht) from the IGE, citing application 00506/20.

Why this matters more than it looks. If the refusal was reasoned, that reasoning tells us which specific technical objection the examiner considered decisive — novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, or exclusion of treatment methods. That is a technical document about the state of the art, and it belongs in this register. Until it is obtained, the assertion «refused without reason» remains an assertion, and this page says so.

4. A caution about what a patent means

A patent is not evidence of efficacy. It is a legal monopoly granted for novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Holding, filing or losing a patent says nothing about whether a treatment works clinically. This page exists because both sides in this debate misuse the same fact: supporters present filings as scientific validation, and critics present refusals as proof of worthlessness. Neither inference is valid.