Protecting Biotechnological Processes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Protecting Biotechnological Processes

Description:

Title: I requisiti di brevettabilit Author: user Last modified by: elisabettacattaneo Created Date: 11/28/2003 8:47:08 AM Document presentation format – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:19
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 11
Provided by: aidicItit
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Protecting Biotechnological Processes


1
ProtectingBiotechnological Processes
  • Similarities and differences in the
    interpretation of the patent before the European
    Patent Office, US Patent Office and Japanese
    Patent Office

2
Diversity of what is patentable
  • In Europe (art.52.1 EPC) and Japan (Art. 29) an
    invention must be new, inventive and have
    industrial applicability
  • In the USA whoever invents or discovers any new
    and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
    composition of matter may obtain a patent
    therefor (35U.S.C 101)

3
Diversity of patentability criteria
  • Novelty
  • In Europe absolute novelty (Art. 54 EPC)
  • In USA relative novelty (35 U.S.C. 102)
  • In Japan relative novelty (Artt. 29.1 and 30 of
    the patent law)
  • Novelty of proteins in US and EP

4
Diversity of patentability criteria
  • Inventive step and non-obviousness
  • there is a similar approach in Europe (Art.56
    EPC), in the United States (35 U.S.C. 103) and in
    Japan (Art. 29.2 of the Japanese law) assessment
    made by the skilled person
  • Inventive step of proteins in US (ex parte Gray)
    and EP (Amgen case T0412/93)

5
Unity of inventionnew Biotechnological
Process/new Biotechnological product
  • Japan Current section 37 and 25.8 of Patent Law
  • (applicable to the applications filed after 1
    Jan 2004)
  • Where there are two or more inventions, they may
    be filed in a single patent application provided
    that these inventions has a technical
    relationship defined by an ordinance of the
    competent Ministry, according to which two or
    more inventions must be linked so as to form a
    single inventive concept by having the same or
    corresponding technical features among them
  • Europe Art. 82 EPC
  • The European patent application shall relate to
    one invention only or a group of inventions so
    linked as to form a single general inventive
    concept
  • USA restriction Practice
  • 35 U.S.C. 121 If two or more independent and
    distinct inventions are claimed in one
    application, the Director may require the
    application to be restricted to one of the
    inventions and 37 CFR 1.141

6
Interpretation of the scope of the process claim
  • Europe if the subject- matter is a process, the
    protection conferred by the patent shall extend
    to the products directly obtained by such process
    (Art. 64.2 EPC)
  • USA Process Patent Protection Act
  • It is an act of infringement to make, use, sell,
    offer to sell or import a product made using a
    process patent in the United States, if such
    manufacture, use, sale or importation occurs
    during the term of the US patent.
  • Japan Art. 68 a Patentee shall have an
    exclusive right to commercially work the
    patented invention, where Art. 2(3)(iii) defines
    as working acts of using, assigning, leasing,
    importing or offering etc. the product
    manufactured by the patented process

7
product-by-process
  • European Patent Office these claims confer
    protection upon the product regardless of the
    process by which it is prepared and defined
    (Amorphous TPM/Enichem T0020/94 Guidelines for
    Examinations, part C, Chapter III, 4.7.b).
  • United States Office these claims are admitted
    and issued if the product is new regardless of
    the definition of the steps of the process.
  • In spite of this

8
product-by-process
  • United States Office the US courts tend to
    interpret and limit the claim product-by-process
    to the sole process.
  • Atlantic Thermoplastic vs Fatex
  • Scripps Clinic vs Genetech
  • Japan Identical Product Theory

9
Sufficiency of disclosure
  • European Patent Office
  • The European patent application must disclose
    the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
    complete to be carried out by a person skilled in
    the art Art. 83 EPC
  • United States Patent Office
  • The requirement of enabling the invention 35
    U.S.C. 112
  • Japanese Patent Office
  • Revised Guidelines (applicable to application
    examined after October 2003) a sustantial
    interrelation between the description and claims
    and not phraseological correspondence

10
Thank You for your attention...
  • Elisabetta CATTANEO
  • Perani Mezzanotte Partners
  • ecattaneo_at_perani.com
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com