B. Article 26.3 Full Disclosure/Enablement

Similar documents
Selection Inventions the Inventive Step Requirement, other Patentability Criteria and Scope of Protection

_ To: The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Bhoudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill, S. M. Road, Mumbai

(ii) Methodologies employed for evaluating the inventive step

China: Managing the IP Lifecycle 2018/2019

4 The Examination and Implementation of Use Inventions in Major Countries

Requirements for Description. Japan Patent Office

What s in the Spec.?

Overview of Examination Guidelines at the Japan Patent Office

Numerical Parameters and Sufficiency

An investment in a patent for your invention could be the best investment you will ever

INVENTION DISCLOSURE. University of Denver Denver, CO 80208

INVENTION DISCLOSURE AND RECORD OF INVENTION

The TRIPS Agreement and Patentability Criteria

Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development

18 The Impact of Revisions of the Patent System on Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry (*)

Inventive step The EPO approach. Director 1466 (DG1, Pure and Applied Organic Chemistry

Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail.

AND PROPER DRAFTING OF REJECTION RULINGS PRINCIPAL OF EXAMINATION

eskbook Emerging Life Sciences Companies second edition Chapter 8 Checklist for Planning and Conducting an Effective FTO Search

REJECTION: REASONS FOR REJECTIONS AND PROPER DRAFTING OF REJECTION RULINGS

Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions

IP Outlook in the Reform Era

I. The First-to-File Patent System

AIPPI Forum Helsinki 2013 Workshop IV Digital Gaming and IP

University joins Industry: IP Department. Georgina Marjanet Ferrer International, SA

Patent Drafting Strategy. Zeinab A. Osman, PhD Institute of Engineering Research and Materials Technology National Center for Research

June 17, 2013 JPO / U.S. Bar Liaison Council Meeting 2013

Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Best Practices

Killing One Bird with Two Stones: Pharmaceutical Patents in the Wake of Pfizer v Apotex and KSR v Teleflex

Good Laboratory Notebook Practices

Governing Council. Inventions Policy. October 30, 2013

Patents AIA Move to First-to-File

UW REGULATION Patents and Copyrights

Retail is becoming more and more. Finding the best protection for retail spaces 3D DESIGNS

Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA COMMENTS OF COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Client s Statement of Rights & Responsibilities*

Loyola University Maryland Provisional Policies and Procedures for Intellectual Property, Copyrights, and Patents

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford March 16, 2015 Class 14 Nonobviousness: introduction; Graham and KSR. Recap

Intellectual Property

VALIDITY ANALYSIS DIAGRAM

What is the Difference Between Design & Utility Patent Drawings?

Invention SUBMISSION BROCHURE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR INVENTION

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford Monday, March 23, 2015 Class 16 Utility. Reminder

Introduction to Intellectual Property

Patent Filing Strategy in Hong Kong

Introduction Disclose at Your Own Risk! Prior Art Searching - Patents

From Transparency to Quality: Bridging the Gap Between Access to Knowledge and Medicines

DEFENSIVE PUBLICATION IN FRANCE

How to Support Relative Claim Terms. Presented at NAPP Annual Meeting & Conference USPTO July 30, 2016

2

Slide 15 The "social contract" implicit in the patent system

Application Readiness Survey: Examiner Perceptions

Questionnaire February 2010

IP Reserch and Use of IP Case Studies for Educational Purposes: Views and Challenges Geneva, April 26-29, 29, 2011

America Invents Act. What does it mean for you?

PartVII:EXAMINATION GUIDELINES FOR INVENTIONS IN SPECIFIC FIELDS

THE JOINT EXAMINATION BOARD PAPER P3 Preparation of Specifications for United Kingdom and Overseas Patents 2006 EXAMINERS COMMENTS

Software Patents in the European Union

America Invents Act (AIA) Chart For University Personnel

Patent Office. Patent Administration And Certificate section And Controlling group. Patent. Licensing and Opposition. Group. PCT receiving office

Bangkok, August 22 to 26, 2016 (face-to-face session) August 29 to October 30, 2016 (follow-up session) Claim Drafting Techniques

JPO s Status report. February 2016 JAPAN PATENT OFFICE

Attorney Docket No Date: 9 July 2007

Exam Ticket Number: I N T E L L E C T U A L P R O P E R T Y : P A T E N T L A W Professor Wagner Spring 2001

PUBLISH AND YOUR PATENT RIGHTS MAY PERISH ALAN M. EHRLICH WEISS, MOY & HARRIS, P.C.

Meeting of International Authorities under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Second medical use claims The pregabalin litigation in Europe IMK seminar at Awapatent, 18 May 2017

JIANQ CHYUN Intellectual Property Office

April 1, Patent Application Pitfall: Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Software Patent for Inadequate Disclosure

Review of practices at the USPTO and the EPO

Patent Protection and Transfer of Technology in Biotech

California State University, Northridge Policy Statement on Inventions and Patents

DETAILED ACTION. 1. This non-final Office action is in response to applicant's communication received. Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101

PATENT ATTORNEYS EXAMINATION PAPER C. Regulation 158. (l)(c) Duration: 3 hours (plus 10 minutes for reading), United States of America

Guidelines for Facilitating the Use of Research Tool Patents in the Life Sciences. March 1, 2007 Council for Science and Technology Policy

Invention and Technology Disclosure Instructions

New York University University Policies

WIPO sub-regional workshop on the utilization of. examination capacities and increase the quality of. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Nov.29 - Dec.

PATENT SPECIFICATION BASIC ANATOMY & PHYSIOLOGY FOR DRAFTING OF PATENT

Utility Utilit Model Sy Model S stem in China

TEPZZ A_T EP A1 (19) (11) EP A1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION. (51) Int Cl.: B66B 1/34 ( )

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

Intellectual Property Law Alert

Jim Banowsky Sonia Cooper Steve Spellman Tom Wong

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

Follow-up after the Accession of Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications

Practical Strategies for Managing Patent Rights for Biotechnology and Medical Device Companies

The Need To Reform The US Patent System. A Story of Unfair Invalidation for Patents Under Alice 101

WGA LOW BUDGET AGREEMENT

2.5.2 NON-DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 27.1)

Software Patent Issues

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 6,347,876 B1

Dr. Biswajit Dhar Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India and Member DA9 Advisory Board

MISSISSAUGA LIBRARY COLLECTION POLICY (Revised June 10, 2015, Approved by the Board June 17, 2015)

CANADA Revisions to Manual of Patent Office Practice (MPOP)

Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore

Policy Contents. Policy Information. Purpose and Summary. Scope. Published on Policies and Procedures (

Recent Updates From CNIPA For Patent Application and examination

Transcription:

Requirements for disclosure of utility or industrial applicability and ramifications for patent validity - China AIPPI World IP Congress, Toronto, Canada September 16, 2014 Workshop Pharma 1 Bonan Lin ( 林柏楠 ) Attorney at Law and Patent Attorney Zhongzi Law Office Beijing, China Phone: +86-10-6609-1188 Fax: +86-10-6609-1199 bonanlin@zhongziip.com

Content A. The Blue Bible B. Article 26.3 Full Disclosure/Enablement C. Article 26.4 Support D. Article 22.3 Inventiveness E. Submission of Data During Examination F. Philosophy Behind the Standards G. Recent Development

A. The Blue Bible The Patent Examination Guidelines (issued by SIPO) is an authoritative source for interpreting Patent Law and the Regulations. The Guidelines is also highly respected by courts. SIPO has de facto control over interpretation of a large number of articles in the Patent Law.

B. Article 26.3 Full Disclosure/Enablement Article 26(3) of the Patent Act: The description shall set forth the invention or utility model in a manner sufficiently clear and complete so as to enable a person skilled in the relevant field of technology to carry it out. Standard (Part II, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.3): Enablement requirement is not met if the specification only provides technical solutions without experimental verification while the technical effect to be achieved by the technical solution needs verification by experiments. For example, the invention for a new use for a known compound requires experimental evidence in the description to verify the new use and effects thereof.

B. Article 26.3 Full Disclosure/Enablement Standard (Part II, Chapter 10, Section 3.1): As for a chemical product invention, the use and/or its technical effect of the product shall be fully disclosed. To meet full disclosure requirement, the specification has to contain qualitative or quantitative data of experimental tests that are sufficient to convince a person skilled in the art that the anticipated technical effects/use can be achieved by the technical solutions disclosed in the patent specification, if the technical effects/use of the invention are not predicable for a person skilled in the art.

B. Article 26.3 Full Disclosure/Enablement Example: A patent application is directed to a pharmaceutical invention with a claim that covers a large number of compounds. The use/technical effect of the invention is described in the specification as: the compounds of the invention significantly inhibit X kinase or the compounds according to the invention significantly inhibit X kinase with IC 50 value in range of 0.01-1 μm. Conclusion: The specification is defective for failing to meet enablement requirement.

C. Article 26.4 Support Article 26(4) of the Patent Act: The claims shall be supported by the description and shall define the extent of the patent protection sought for in a clear and concise manner. Standard (Part II, Chapter 2, Section 3.2.1): A claim will be found not supported by the disclosure in the specification if it covers embodiments that are not illustrated by examples (presumed by the applicant) and the technical effects of these presumed embodiments cannot be ascertained in advance.

D. Article 22.3 Inventiveness Technical effect that is achieved by the claimed invention is a key element in deciding inventiveness of the invention.

D. Article 22.3 Inventiveness Example: A patent application is directed to a pharmaceutical invention with a claim that covers a reasonable range of several hundreds of compounds. The compounds differ from prior art compounds cited by the examiner in that it has a (substituted) cyclohexyl substitution on an aromatic structure while the prior art compounds has a pyridyl substitution on the same position of the same structure. The compounds have roughly the same pharmacological activity. To overcome inventiveness rejection, the applicant submitted comparative tests data to prove additional technical effects the claimed compounds have over the prior art compounds (decreased hepatic extraction ratio, and so on).

D. Article 22.3 Inventiveness The comparative tests data was not accepted by the examiner because the technical effects to be proved by the tests data, as well as the tests methods, were not mentioned in the original patent specification.

E. Submission of Data During Examination Submission of experimental data during examination for the purpose of overcoming rejections on grounds of enablement/full disclosure requirements (Article 26.3) and support requirement (Article 26.4) are not acceptable. Submission of experimental data during examination for the purpose of overcoming inventiveness rejections is possible provided that the patent specification as filed already contains description of the technical effect to be illustrated /proved by the experimental data.

F. Philosophy Behind the Standards Patent applicants are presumed to be a group of selfish and greedy people. They are bad guys. They were even not honest enough to tell the truth of their invention. The understanding is that the examiners are trained and hired to fight against patent applicants who contribute to the society too less and yet want to have too large scope of protection, on behalf of the public. The examiners will feel proud of themselves when they find new ways to say no to the patent applicants.

F. Philosophy Behind the Standards Scenarios for the Future (EP study)

G. Recent Development Since late 2012: Focus of patent examination has been shifted to prior art-related issues (novelty/inventiveness) October 2013: SIPO paper issued which is widely understood to mean loosening the policy of refusing to accept tests data during examination. Current situation: no revision of Examination Guidelines, the policy has not yet been reduced to practice. The philosophy has not been changed. The examiners are still fighting against the bad guys.

Requirements for disclosure of utility or industrial applicability and ramifications for patent validity China Thank you very much for your patience! Bonan Lin ( 林柏楠 ) Attorney at Law and Patent Attorney Zhongzi Law Office Beijing, China Phone: +86-10-6609-1188 Fax: +86-10-6609-1199 bonanlin@zhongziip.com