Sufficiency of disclosure and genus claims for protection of biological sequences: a comparative study among the patent offices in Brazil, Europe and the United States
Poliana Belisário Zorzal, Fabricia Pires Pimenta, Antonio Alberto Ribeiro Fernandes, Alexandre Guimarães Vasconcellos
Abstract
Patent protection has been chosen as a strategy to protect new developments in molecular biology such as novel genes and proteins. A way to ensure the protection of genetic inventions is to claim a set of sequences that are associated with the described genetic sequences in terms of structure and/or biological activity, in a genus claim. Clearly, achieving an effective patent protection for proteins and genetic sequences is a real challenge for an Intellectual Property manager, considering the unpredictability of biological sciences and the diversity in current patent law and patent office guidance in each territory. This paper seeks to study the Brazilian patent office procedures about genus claims for biological sequences while comparing them with two other national/regional offices. To achieve this result, we initially present the concepts, followed by the current requirements and the barriers to obtain genus claims for biological sequences in the legal framework and patent office prosecution of Brazil, the European Union, and the United States. Subsequently, we study the impacts of these regulations in the scope of claim protection in each territory. This is done by comparing patent documents with the same priority granted in each of these offices in order to analyze the extension of the owner's rights for biological sequences. Understanding the logic that supports the examination procedures in the three studied offices will be important to subsidize the legal protection for gene-based inventions. Therefore, this would support the development of a patent system that can provide satisfactory safeguard for the results of investments in biotechnology Research and Development initiatives.
Keywords
References
AbbVie, 2014
AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotechnology, Ltd., 759 F.3d 1285. (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Brasil, 1996
Brasil. (1996). Law n. 9.279 of May 14, 1996. Law on Industrial Property – Regulates rights and obligations related to industrial property. Accessed from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=125397.
Biogen Inc v Medeva plc, 1997
Biogen Inc v Medeva plc. (1997). RPC 1, [1996] UKHL 18, (1997) 38 BMLR 149, on appeal from the Court of Appeal – Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1995] FSR 4; [1995] RPC 25, and the Patents Court – Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc. (Unreported, November 4, 1993).
Capon, 2005
Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084. (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Carlson, 2016
R. Carlson
Estimating the biotech sector's contribution to the US economy
Nature Biotechnology, 34 (3) (2016), p. 247, 10.1038/nbt.3491
Carroll et al., 2018
D. Carroll, P. Daszak, N.D. Wolfe, G.F. Gao, C.M. Morel, S. Morzaria, et al.
The global virome project
Science, 359 (6378) (2018), pp. 872-874, 10.1126/science.aap7463
Cole, 2015
P. Cole
Patentability of genes: A European Union perspective
Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 5 (5) (2015), 10.1101/cshperspect.a020891
De Luca and Trifonova, 2017
C. De Luca, A. Trifonova
Patent disclosure requirements for therapeutic antibody patents
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 27 (8) (2017), pp. 867-875, 10.1080/13543776.2017.1296950
Dufresne and Duval, 2004
G. Dufresne, M. Duval
Genetic sequences: how are they patented?
Nature Biotechnology, 22 (2004), pp. 231-232, 10.1038/nbt0204-231
EPO, 2015
EPO, European Patent Office. (2015). European Patent Convention. Implementing Regulations - to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ma2.html.
EPO, 2017
EPO, European Patent Office. (2017). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/guidelines.html. Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839. (C.C.P.A. 1970).
Giles, 2011
P.B. Giles
How to claim a gene: Application of the patent disclosure requirements to genetic sequences
Georgia State University Law Review, 27 (3) (2011), p. 6
https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol27/iss3/6
Holman, 2004
C.M. Holman
Protein similarity score: A simplified version of the blast score as a superior alternative to percent identity for claiming genuses of related protein sequences
Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 21 (55) (2004)
https://ssrn.com/abstract=932070
In re Barker, 1977
In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4. (CCPA 1977).
In re Fisher, 1970
In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
INPI, 2013
INPI, Brazilian Industrial Property Institute. (2013). Guidelines for Patent Applications Examination – Patent Application: Title, Description, Claims, Drawings and Summary. Resolution n. 124/2013. Accessed from http://www.inpi.gov.br/legislacao-arquivo/docs/resolucao_124_diretrizes_bloco_1_versao_final_03_12_2013_0.pdf.
INPI, 2015
INPI, Brazilian Industrial Property Institute. (2015). Brazilian Guidelines for Patent Applications Examination in Biotechnology. Resolution n. 144/2015. Accessed from http://www.inpi.gov.br/sobre/arquivos/resolucao_144-2015_-_diretrizes_biotecnologia.pdf.
Kellam, 2001
M.D. Kellam
Making sense out of antisense: The enablement requirement in biotechnology after Enzo Biochem v. Calgene
Indian Law Journal, 76 (2001), p. 221
Lewin et al., 2018
H.A. Lewin, G.E. Robinson, W.J. Kress, W.J. Baker, J. Coddington, K.A. Crandall, et al.
Earth BioGenome Project: Sequencing life for the future of life
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (17) (2018), pp. 4325-4333, 10.1073/pnas.1720115115
Latimer, 2005
M.T. Latimer
Patenting inventions arising from biological research
Genome Biology, 6 (1) (2005), p. 203
Lung Tin, 2017
Lung Tin IP (2017). Newsletter – China's Recent Development on Granting Biological Sequence Claims. http://www.lungtin.com/UploadFile/Files/2017/12/7/151833146ae51e203-2.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2018.
McTavish, 2001
H. McTavish
Enabling genus patent claims to DNA
Minnesota Intellectual Property Review, 2 (2001)
i. http://hdl.handle.net/10822/517537
OLRC, 2012
OLRC, Office of the Law Revision Code. (2012). Title 35, United States Code, part II, chapter 11, section 112. Accessed from http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section112&num=0&edition=prelim.
Ravi, 2013
B. Ravi
Gene Patents in India: Gauging policy by an analysis of the grants made by the Indian Patent Office
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18 (2013), pp. 323-329
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/20283
Sampson, 2000
M. Sampson
The evolution of the enablement and written description requirements under 35 USC § 112 in the area of biotechnology
Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2000), pp. 1233-1274
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24115688
T 0727/95, 1999
T 0727/95 (Cellulose) of 21.5.1999. Decision of Technical Board of Appeal. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950727ep1.html.
T 1644/08, 2011
T 1644/08 (Endoglucanases/NOVOZYMES) of 15.2.2011. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t081644eu1.html#q1644%2F08%20.
T 1727/12, 2016
T 1727/12 of of 1.2.2016. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t121727eu1.html.
T 0172/99, 2001
T 0172/99 of 7.3.2002. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t990172eu1.html.
Tostmann, 2015
H. Tostmann
Protecting chemistry inventions: The double-edged sword of being an unpredictable art
ACS Medical Chemical Letters, 6 (4) (2015), pp. 364-366, 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00116
United States, 1933
United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 186-187 (1933).
USPTO, 2008
USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2008). U.S. Dept of Commerce, Written Description Training Materials. Accessed from http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/menu/written.pdf.
USPTO, 2009
USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2009). Training materials for examining patent applications with respect to 35 u.s.c. section 112, first paragraph-enablement of chemical/biotechnical applications.
Yoo et al., 2005
H. Yoo, C. Ramanathan, C. Barcelon-Yang
Intellectual property management of biosequence information from a patent searching perspective
World Patent Information, 27 (3) (2005), pp. 203-211, 10.1016/j.wpi.2005.02.001
Zhang et al., 2017
T. Zhang, D.J. Sherwinter, D. Greenbaum
Call for Standardization in Patent Claim Drafting
Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 34 (2017), p. 290
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol34/iss3/2
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email