United States patent prior art rules and the neem controversy: a case of subject-matter imperialism?

A recent United States patent covering an improvement to the naturally-occurring pesticide in neem tree seed oil might have been rejected as 'obvious' if United States patent law recognized certain forms of prior inventive activity on a par with similar activity occurring within the United States' borders. But the US only recognizes prior 'knowledge, use or invention' as blocking a claim to a patent when those activities take place within US borders, or are evidenced by publications accessible in the US, or, more commonly, by foreign patents. Neither of these last forms of tangible 'prior art' is likely to be available to block patents on biodiversity inventions – most notably because of the fact that most developing nations do not allow patents on pharmaceutical or agricultural inventions, categories subsuming most biodiversity-related advances. Although the United States patent only has direct force within the United States, it is nonetheless highly significant to this global dispute, since the United States and other developed nations stand to be the major markets for the end-products of neem. This paper argues that the border-drawing distinctions in US patent law are archaic, counter to stated policy directives and are disproportionately influencing the developing world's stance towards GATT and its intellectual property rights provisions.     

Who should benefit financially from a good idea?

The need to publish ideas so that they can be explored, debated and extended by others before they are fully tested in the lab or the clinic is in conflict with the need to patent those ideas to provide a commercial incentive to apply them. I discuss why this conflict occurs, why it is important, and suggest three ways to get round it: root-and-branch reform of patent law (which seems impossible), extension of the US system's ‘grace period’ between publishing and filing a patent to longer times in the US and implementing the same system in other countries (which seems unlikely to happen), and binding readers of journals with a network of optional confidentiality agreements that allow publication but not citation without the authors’ permission. This latter appears too complex and conflicting an idea to work either, but while many conflicts with common scientific practice exist, the complexity of the system need not deter us, as at root the idea is simple and so it could be managed by software instead of patent lawyers.     

在我国失效的美国心血管疾病治疗药物的PCT 专利申请数据挖掘

目的：从没有在中国得到保护的美国专利申请或专利中寻找心血管疾病治疗药物研发的思路。方法：对申请日从2005 年1 月1 日至2014 年12 月31 日的美国心血管系统疾病治疗药物PCT 申请进入中国国家阶段后失效的专利申请及专利数据进行整序和分析,依据其在美国本土的法律状态确定其技术含金量。结果：未得到中国专利保护的美国心血管系统疾病治疗药物PCT 申请共174 件,其中170 件申请了美国优先权或进入了美国国家阶段。结论：170 件美国心血管系统疾病治疗药物PCT 申请在美国申请优先权,大多数因美国的优先权临时申请过期而放弃。14 件在美国本土的优先权申请失效,其所含信息量应该相当于公开发表的论文的信息量,23 件在美国本土优先权授权的专利技术具有一定的技术含金量,目前在中国已经进入公知公用领域,经过市场价值评估后可以无偿使用。     

Global trends in research and commercialization of exogenous and endogenous RNAi technologies for crops

It has only been about 20 years since the first Nobel Prize-winning work on RNA interference (RNAi) in Caenorhabditis elegans was published in the journal Nature. Fast forward to today, and the use of RNA molecules as gene-silencing elements in crops has helped scientists to unveil possible solutions to the global problems of agricultural losses due to pests, viruses, pathogens, and to other abiotic and biotic stresses. The recent proliferation of publications suggests that the technology has gained significant attention and received ample funding support. In this article, an attempt has been made to visualize recent trends in Research & Development (R&D) investment in this field by analyzing top cited scholarly articles, patent trends, and commercialization activity. The publication and citation analysis identified that the development of RNAi-based crops conferring resistance against viruses, fungi, and pests are at the forefront of RNAi research and that Chinese and US institutions are the leaders in this field. The patent landscape analysis for RNAi technology over all aspects related to RNAi-derived crops provides an overview of patenting activity from a geographical, organizational, and legal perspective. Such an exercise is pivotal to industry players and public institutions aiming at creating intellectual property that is commercially appealing. An upswing in commercial interests in this technology in recent years is reflected by a consistent number of patent filings in US, European, and Chinese patent offices, with multinational giant firms as the most prolific patent filers. The expanding RNAi commercialization landscape is supported by a series of strategic partnerships, licensing agreements, and acquisitions created between agribusinesses, public research institutions, and startup companies. From key observations, we would like to highlight that such investments have very positive impacts on the development of RNAi technology. Nonetheless, the success of this technology is dependent on several factors, such as financial requirements, the complexity, and timeframe of the entire development process, as well as stringent regulations imposed by the relevant authorities. In most countries, RNAi-based transgenic crops are still considered as a genetically modified (GM) product, which necessitates the crops to undergo rigorous evaluation before approval is granted. Recent advancements in exogenous RNAi-derived biopesticides have provided a nontransgenic alternative to GM crops. However, challenges still remain in the form of technical hurdles and regulatory ambiguities surrounding this emerging technology. Its full potential remains to be realized.     

From bench to bar: careers in patent law for molecular biologists

Leaving science to pursue a career in patent law requires a considerable investment of time and energy, and possibly money, with no guarantee of finding a job or of returning to science should the decision prove infelicitous. Yet the large number of former scientists now practicing patent law shows that it can be done. I provide suggestions for investigating the potential opportunities, costs, risks, and rewards of this career path.The molecular biologist wishing to retool herself or himself as a patent law professional has a number of specific career options to choose from.     

Patenting for the research scientist: an update

Academic institutional research constantly produces results worthy of patent protection, but coping with the demands of patent law presents considerable challenges to bioscientists working in these institutions. Inventors need, however, to be aware of recent patent office guidelines and court decisions if they are to seek useful intellectual property as a basis for technology transfer to industry.     

United States patents and fungal cultures

Summary Fungal biotechnology has generated a voluminous amount of technical literature and scientific data. Patents probably contain the most complete and detailed information about the use of fungal cultures in biotechnology. This article contains a brief review of the United States patent system where microorganisms form an integral part of the disclosure and explains the role of the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) as a patent culture depository. A list based on the application of the ATCC fungal strains which have been cited or used in US patents and the names of the inventors, the titles of the inventions, and their patent numbers are included. This provides resource material particularly for developing countries as they begin to establish their own biotechnology.     

Invisible genomes: the genomics revolution and patenting practice

In the mid-1990s, the company Human Genome Sciences submitted three potentially revolutionary patent applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office, each of which claimed the entire genome sequence of a microorganism. The patent examiners, however, objected to these applications, and after negotiation they were eventually re-written to resemble more traditional gene patents. In this paper, which is based on a study of the patent examination files, we examine the reasons why these patent applications were unsuccessful in their original form. We show that with respect to utility and novelty, the patent attorney's case built on an understanding of the genome as a computer-related invention. The patent examiners did not object to the patenting of complete genome sequences as computer-related inventions on moral grounds or in terms of the distinction between a discovery and an invention. Instead, their objections were based on classification, rules and procedure. Rather than patent examiners having a notion of a genome that should not be patented, the notion of a 'genome', and the ways in which it may be different from a 'gene', played no role in these debates. We discuss the consequences of our findings for patenting in the biosciences.     

基于专利分析的干细胞技术创新趋势研究

干细胞(Stem Cells)是当今世界科学研究的热门领域。本文对Derwent Innovation Index(DII)专利数据库收录的1975-2013年世界范围内申请的干细胞技术专利进行了数据计量分析,给出了干细胞专利的年度分布、地区分布、研发重点分布、机构分布等,揭示了已展现出明显优势的干细胞技术的创新现状和发展趋势,所得到的结果可为这种新技术的研发决策提供支持与依据。研究发现,干细胞技术近年来发展迅速,美国和中国对干细胞领域研究资助力度持续加大,美国和日本在干细胞研究领域占据主导地位,目前正处新一轮发展阶段。     

An assessment of emerging molecular farming activities based on patent analysis (2002∼2006)

The products of Plant Molecular Farming are recombinant proteins or their metabolic products. In this study, patent data was employed to assess industrial trend in the research and innovation process of Plant Molecular Farming within national and international context. The US Patent and Trade Organization (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO) issued a total of 585 patents covering Plant Molecular Farming from 2002 through 2006. By nationality, US inventors predominated as recipients of PMF patents, followed by Germany, Denmark, and Japan. The PMF patents were catagorized in five major areas of research namely pharmaceutical and nutraceuticals with 170 patents (31%) and plant expression tools and methods for alternative production systems with 169 patents (29%) were the dominating patent applications, followed by 102 patent claims associated with antibodies (17%), 71 patents of industrial molecules (12%), 48 patents of vaccines (8%), and finally 18 patents related to post-translational protein glycosylation (3%). The greatest proportion of patentees was of US origin (52%), and PMF associated patenting activities at the USPTO and EPO were dominated with 67% by private organizations. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.     

Intellectual property protection for plant-related inventions in Europe

The economic and political issues that accompany the commercial growing of genetically modified crops, as well as the risk of transgene spread, are often top of the agenda for debate. But one important aspect is frequently overlooked--the intellectual property protection of plant-related inventions. What protection does European patent law afford to such inventions, how does it compare with the United States law and what are the consequences of the differences between them?     

Identification of gene-related Korean patents and construction of a database server for Korean patent sequences

With the advent of high-throughput techniques, the number of patent applications containing biological sequences has been increasing rapidly in Korea. However, there is little information on gene relatedness of the Korean patent sequences. The primary aims of this study are two-fold. First, we associated Korean patent applications with genes. Second, we have constructed a database server, named Patome@Korea, to provide the gene-patent map and the Korean patent data containing biological sequences. To associate the sequences with genes, we have received patent sequence data from the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and annotated them with RefSeq and Entrez Gene. Through the association analysis, we found that nearly 14.7% of human genes were related to Korean patenting, compared to 25% of human genes in the US patent. We have consolidated the association results and the patent sequence data to a relational database and implemented a web-based user interface to provide search service. The database can be queried using application number, applicant, titles, gene ID/name, and RefSeq number. We also provide web-based BLAST facility to allow users to compare their sequences against patent sequences. Equal contribution.     

Gene patents and capital investment

Will the US Supreme Court''s ruling that genes can no longer be patented in the USA boost venture capital investment into biotech and medical startup companies?Three years ago, Noubar Afeyan, managing partner and CEO of Flagship Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, was working with a biotech start-up company developing techniques for BRCA gene testing for breast cancer risk that avoided the patents held by Myriad Genetics, a molecular diagnostics company in Salt Lake City (Utah, USA) and the only operator in the field. However, despite the promise of the start-up''s techniques, investors were put off by Myriad''s extensive patent portfolio and fiercely defensive tactics: “A lot of investors were simply not willing to take that chance, even though our technology was superior in many ways and patentably different,” Afeyan said. The effort to launch the start-up ultimately failed.…it is also not clear how the Supreme Court''s ruling will affect the […] industry at large, now that one of the most contested patents for a human gene has been ruled invalidAfeyan believes the prospects for such start-ups improved on the morning of 13 June 2013 when the US Supreme Court ruled in an unanimous vote that Myriad''s fundamental patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes themselves are invalid, opening up the field to new competitors. The court''s ruling, however, validated Myriad''s patents for BRCA cDNA and methods-of-use.The court''s decision comes at a time when venture capital investment into the life sciences is projected to decline in the years ahead. Some believe that the court''s decision sets a precedent and could provide a boost for products, diagnostics and other tests under development that would have been legally difficult in the light of existing patents on human and other DNA sequences.The US Patent Office issued the original patents for the BRCA 1 and BRCA2 genes in 1997 and 1998 for the US National Institute of Environmental Health Services, the University of Utah and Myriad Genetics. One year earlier, Myriad had launched its first diagnostic test for breast cancer risk based on the two genes and has since aggressively defended it against both private and public competitors in court. Many universities and hospitals were originally offering the test for a lower cost, but Myriad forced them to stop and eventually monopolized BRCA-based diagnostics for breast cancer risk in the USA and several other countries.“Myriad did not create anything,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the Supreme Court''s decision. “To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.” Even so, the court did uphold Myriad''s patents on the methodology of its test. Ron Rogers, a spokesman for the biotech firm, said the Supreme Court had “affirmed the patent eligibility of synthetic DNA and underscored the importance and applicability of method-of-use patents for gene-based diagnostic tests. Before the Supreme Court case we had 24 patents and 520 claims. After the Supreme Court decision, we still have 24 patents. […] [T]he number of our patent claims was reduced to 515. In the Supreme Court case itself, only nine of our 520 patent claims were at issue. Of the nine, the Supreme Court ruled that five were not patent-eligible and they ruled that four were patent-eligible. We still have strong intellectual property protection surrounding our BRCA test and the Supreme Court''s decision doesn''t change that.”Within hours of the ruling, capitalism kicked into high gear. Two companies, Ambry Genetics in Alieso Viejo, California, and Gene by Gene Ltd in Houston, Texas, USA, announced that they were launching tests for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for less than the US$3,100 Myriad has been charging privately insured patients and US$2,795 for patients covered by Medicare—the government health plan for the elderly and disabled. Several other companies and universities also announced they would be offering BRCA testing.Entrepreneur Bennett Greenspan, a managing partner of Gene by Gene, explained that his company had been poised to offer BRCA testing if the Supreme Court ruled against Myriad. He said, “We had written a press release with our PR firm a month before the release of the Supreme Court with the intention that if the Supreme Court overruled the patent or invalidated the patent that we would launch right away and if they didn''t, we would just tear up the press release.” His company had previously offered BRCA gene testing in Israel based on guidelines from the European Union.Myriad Genetics has not given up defending its patents, however. On 9 and 10 July 2013, it slapped Ambry and Gene by Gene with lawsuits in the US District Court in Salt Lake City for allegedly infringing on patents covering synthetic DNA and methods-of-use related to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Rogers commented that the testing processes used by the firms “infringes 10 patents covering synthetic primers, probes and arrays, as well as methods of testing, related to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.”On 6 August 2013, Ambry countersued Myriad, arguing that the company “continues a practice of using overreaching practices to wrongfully monopolize the diagnostic testing of humans'' BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in the United States and to attempt to injure any competitor […] Due to Myriad''s anticompetitive conduct, customers must pay significantly higher prices for Myriad''s products in the relevant market, often nearly twice as high as the price of Ambry''s products and those of other competitors” [1].Just as the courts will have to clarify whether the competitors in this case infringe on Myriad''s patents, it is also not clear how the Supreme Court''s ruling will affect the biotech and diagnostics industry at large, now that one of the most contested patents for a human gene has been ruled invalid. In recent years, venture capital investment into the life sciences has been in decline. The National Venture Capital Association and the Medical Innovation & Competitiveness Coalition reported from a survey that, “An estimated funding loss of half a billion dollars over the next three years will cost America jobs at a time when we desperately need employment growth” [2]. The survey of 156 venture capital firms found that 39% of respondents said they had reduced investment in the life sciences during the previous three years, and the same proportion intended to do so in the next three years. “[US Food and Drug Administration] FDA regulatory challenges were identified as having the highest impact on these investment decisions,” the report states, adding that many investors intended to shift their focus from the US towards Europe and the Asia/Pacific region.Another report from the same groups explains how public policy involving the FDA and other players in “the medical innovation ecosystem”—including the US patent system, public agencies, tax policy, securities regulation, immigration laws and private groups such as insurers—affect the decisions of investors to commit to funding medical innovation [3].Some investors think that the court decision about the patentability of human DNA will increase confidence and help to attract investors back to the life sciencesSome investors think that the court decision about the patentability of human DNA will increase confidence and help to attract investors back to the life sciences. “The clarity is helpful because for the longest time people didn''t do things because of ambiguity about whether those patents would be enforceable,” Afeyan said. “It''s one thing to not do something because of a patent, it''s another to not do something because you know that they have patents but you''re not sure what it''s going to stop you from doing because it hasn''t been really fully fleshed out. Now I think it is reasonably well fleshed out and I think you will see more innovation in the space.”Others also appreciate the clarification from the Supreme Court about what is a patentable invention in regard to human genes and DNA. “The Myriad decision was a very solid reading of the underlying purpose of our patent law, which is to reward novel invention,” commented Patrick Chung, a partner with New Enterprise Associates, a venture capital firm in Menlo Park, California, which invested in 23andMe, a personal genomics company based in Mountain View (California, USA), and who serves on the 23andMe board.But not everyone agrees that the Supreme Court''s decision has provided clarity. “You could spin it and say that it was beneficial to create some certainty, but at the end of the day, what the Court did was reduce the scope of what you''re allowed to get patent claims on,” said Michael Schuster, a patent lawyer and Intellectual Property Partner and Co-Chair of the Life Sciences Group at Fenwick & West LLP in San Francisco, California, USA. “It''s going to be a continuing dance between companies, smart patent lawyers, and the courts to try to minimize the impact of this decision.”Kevin Noonan, a molecular biologist and patent lawyer with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP in Chicago, Illinois, USA, commented that he does not expect the Supreme Court decision will have much of an impact on venture investments or anything else. “This case comes at a time fortunately when biotechnology is mature enough so that the more pernicious effects of the decision are not going to be quite as harmful as they would if this had happened ten, 15 or 20 years ago,” he said. “We''re now in the ‘post-genomic'' era; since the late ‘90s and turn of the century, the genomic and genetic data from the Human Genome Project have been on publicly available databases. As a consequence, if a company didn''t apply for a patent before the gene was disclosed publicly, it certainly is not able to apply for a patent now. The days of obtaining these sequences and trying to patent them are behind us.”Noonan also noted that the Myriad Genetics patents were due to expire in 2014–2015 anyway. “Patents are meaningless if you can''t enforce them. And when they expire, you can no longer enforce them. So it really isn''t an impediment to genetic testing now,” he explained. “What the case illustrates is a disconnect between scientists and lawyers. That''s an old battle.”George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) and Director of the Personal Genome Project, maintains that the Supreme Court decision will have minimal influence on the involvement of venture capitalists in biotech. “I think it''s a non-issue. It''s basically addressing something that was already dead. That particular method of patenting or trying to patent components of nature without modification was never really a viable strategy and in a particular case of genes, most of the patents in the realm of bio-technology have added value to genes and that''s what they depend on to protect their patent portfolio—not the concept of the gene itself,” he said. “I don''t know of any investor who is freaked out by this at all. Presumably there are some, because the stock oscillates. But you can get stock to oscillate with all kinds of nonsense. But I think the sober, long-term investors who create companies that keep innovating are not impacted.”Church suggests that the biggest concern for Myriad now is whole-gene sequencing, rather than the Supreme Court''s decision. “Myriad should be worrying about the new technology, and I''m sure they''ve already considered this. The new technology allows you to sequence hundreds of genes or the whole genome for basically the price they''ve been charging all along for two genes. And from what I understand, they are expanding their collection to many genes, taking advantage of next generation sequencing as other companies have already,” he said.Whatever its consequences in the US, the Supreme Court''s decision will have little impact on other parts of the world, notably Europe, where Myriad also holds patents on the BRCA genes in several countries. Gert Matthijs, Head of the Laboratory for Molecular Diagnostics at the Centre for Human Genetics in Leuven, Belgium, says that even though the US Supreme Court has invalidated the principle of patenting genes in America, the concept remains in Europe and is supported by the European Parliament and the European Patent Convention. “Legally, nothing has changed in Europe,” he commented. “But there is some authority from the US Supreme Court even if it''s not legal authority in Europe. Much of what has been used as arguments in the Supreme Court discussions has been written down by the genetics community in Europe back in 2008 in the recommendations on behalf of the European Society for Human Genetics. The Supreme Court decision is something that most of us in Europe would agree upon only because people have been pushing towards protecting the biotech industry that the pendulum was so way out in Europe.”Benjamin Jackson, Senior Director of legal affairs at Myriad Genetics, commented that Myriad holds several patents in Europe that are not likely to be affected by the Supreme Court''s ruling. “The patent situation both generally and for Myriad is a lot clearer in Europe. The European Union Biotech Directive very clearly says that isolated DNA is patentable even if it shares the same sequence as natural DNA,” he said. “Right now, it''s pretty uncontroversial, or at least it''s well settled law basically in Europe that isolated DNA is patentable.” However, while the Directive states that “biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process” might be patentable “even if it previously occurred in nature”, the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, Germany, requires that the subject matter is an inventive step and not just an obvious development of existing technology and that the industrial application and usefulness must be disclosed in the application.Myriad has opened a headquarters in Zurich and a lab in Munich during the past year, hoping to make inroads in Europe. In some EU countries, Myriad offers its BRCA test as part of cancer diagnosis. In other countries, BRCA testing is conducted at a fraction of what Myriad charges in the USA, either because institutions ignore the patents that are not enforced in their jurisdictions, or because these countries, such as Belgium, were not included in the patent granted by the European Patent Office. Moreover, in various countries BRCA testing is only available through the healthcare system and only as part of a more extensive diagnosis of cancer risk. In addition, as Matthijs commented, “[t]he healthcare system in Europe is very heterogeneous and that''s also of course a big impediment for a big laboratory to try and conquer Europe because you have to go through different reimbursement policies in different countries and that''s not easy.”Ultimately, it seems the Supreme Court''s decision might turn out to have little impact on biotech firms in either the USA or Europe. Technological advances, in particular new sequencing technologies, might render the issue of patenting individual genes increasingly irrelevant.     

Impact of the US Patent System on the Promise of Personalized Medicine

The biotechnology revolution promises unfathomable future scientific discovery. One of the potential benefits is the accelerated introduction of new diagnostics and treatments to the general public. The right medication for the right patient is the goal of personalized medicine, which directly benefits from many of biotechnology's biggest and most recent advances. The US patent system rewards innovation in medicine and other arts and sciences by granting innovators, for a period of time, the right to exclude others from using what was invented. One of the purposes of the patent system is to trade that right to exclude, and in its stead obtain the patent holder's obligation to fully and publicly disclose the essence of the innovations so that they can be improved, thus advancing the common welfare. A tension exists between personalized medicine's need for access to and use of scientific advances and the patent system's reward of exclusive use or nonuse to innovators. This tension may result in fewer diagnostic and therapeutic tools brought to the market and generally adopted. The risk seems particularly acute with respect to the diagnostic and therapeutic tools arising from genetic testing that hold specific value for a subset of the population. The judicial system has introduced ethical exceptions that overcome a patent holder's right to exclude; these judicial overrides relate to the provision of certain types of medical procedures and the development of certain types of new drugs, and not, apparently, to the use of diagnostic and therapeutic tools essential to the success of personalized medicine. A serious question exists as to whether legislative action is necessary to increase public access to genetic testing.     

Intellectual property in natural sciences

The way from scientific finding through invention to production line and finally to the consument is long and expensive and patent should be taken into account. This is evident because the investment connected with the new application needs clear definition of intellectual property rights. Independently what we personally think about patenting in nature sciences--this is a common practice around the world. The positive and negative parameters of patenting are focus on biotechnology. The development of biotechnology is a cumulative effect of co-operation of several disciplines: biology, biochemistry, chemistry, engineering, genetics, medicines and pharmacy and many more. Between not cited here is law and consequently the needs of cooperation between researchers and lawyers. There are several barriers in this co-operation, for example: nomenclature as well as the way of thinking. These borders could be pass only with intercommunication and cross-understanding. The dialog and transfer of knowledge is a must for understanding the nomenclature, terminology of nature by lawyers and by researchers in case of law. Polish legislation concerning intellectually rights is regulated by the law "Prawo w?asno?ci przemys?owej" (30 June, 2000; Dz. U. 2003, Nr 119, pos. 1117, with later amendments). This legislation is related to European Union directives and Munich Convention. Accordingly patenting of product and process is possible in Poland. However, the procedure is time and money consuming, particularly in the case of patent submission in several countries. Amendment of the Polish law to biotechnology made possible patenting of living organism and their parts. It is worth to stress that patented inventions can be used free of charge for research and teaching.     

生物学发明及其专利保护

本参考中国专利法,欧洲专利法及美国、日本的相关专利法条和有关国际公约讨论了生物学发明及其获得专利保护的一般方法和原则,以期帮助有关企业和科研机构能有效地对相应地发明进行专利保护。     

特殊酵母工业应用专利发展态势分析

特殊酵母作为区别于传统酵母之外的一类生物资源,具有广泛的工业应用前景.基于incoPat数据库收录的专利数据,以特殊酵母工业应用领域的专利为研究对象,从专利分析的角度,揭示了全球特殊酵母工业应用领域技术创新的发展态势、技术分布、主要申请机构、研究热点以及各类特殊酵母的应用优势等.结果表明:全球特殊酵母工业应用领域的专利...     

A patent lawyer's perspective

The principles of patent law are first briefly explained. Particular patent problems which arise from the preparation of new drugs in novel chiral forms are then discussed and illustrated by reference to legal decisions.     

从Myriad案谈基因专利的正当性及美国对基因专利授权实质性要件分析

按照专利制度构建的本质,基因专利的作用在于激励产业创新,促进基因研究的发展。但基因专利从产生以来就一直存在着争议。2011年美国Myriad案对分离DNA序列的可专利性具有不同的观点,从Myriad I案认为分离的DNA是不可专利的客体,到Myriad II上诉案中联邦巡回上诉法院推翻地方法院的观点,认为分离的DNA具有不同的化学结构,满足专利客体的适格性,但同时也反射出了对DNA序列可专利性的怀疑。Myriad案引起了美国、欧洲和澳大利亚司法审判中就基因专利适格性问题的较大争议。本文结合美国Myriad案来分析DNA序列作为专利客体的适格性以及目前美国对基因专利授权的实质性条件。     

水稻分子育种技术专利分析

通过Thomson Innovation（TI）专利平台数据库中相关专利的检索,利用专利计量学的方法,从专利申请数量、受理国家、申请机构、技术生命周期以及研发热点等方面对水稻分子育种技术国际发展态势进行分析。结果表明,水稻分子育种技术目前整体呈快速发展趋势,并已趋于成熟。其中,美国的申请量最多,是全球最受重视的技术市场。大型跨国公司不仅是全球最主要的专利申请主体,而且在我国的专利申请活动也较为活跃。我国在水稻分子育种技术领域专利数量较多,并且具有一定优势,相关专利申请主体为科研机构和大学。对专利文献内容的深入分析表明,重要农艺性状的基因挖掘和转基因技术是分子育种技术领域当前的研发热点。