Patent protection for protein structure analysis

Nature Biotechnology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 109-112

  Shimbo, Itsuki ^a   Nakajima, Rie ^b   Yokoyama, Shigeyuki ^c   Sumikura, Koichi ^d  

^a RIKEN   (Japan)

^b RIKEN YOKOHAMA INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^d NATIONAL GRADUATE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; LEGAL ASPECT; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN TERTIARY STRUCTURE; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG INDUSTRY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; PATENTS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; PROTEOMICS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 0347986650     PISSN: 10870156     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nbt0104-109     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Trilateral Project WM4, Comparative Studies in New Technologies. Report on Comparative Study on Protein 3-Dimensional Structure Related Claims, Vienna, Austria, November 4-8, 2002.
2. Flower, R.J. The development of Cox2 inhibitors. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 179-191 (2003).
3. http://www.rsgi.riken.jp/
4. Hultquist, S.J. et al. Patenting bioinformatic inventions: emerging trends in Europe, Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 517-518 (2002).
5. Hultquist, S.J. et al. Patenting bioinformatic inventions: emerging trends in the United States, Nat. Biotechnol. 20, 743-744 (2002).
6. USPTO. Examination guidelines for computer-related inventions, 61 Fed. Reg. 7478 (1996).
7. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-4, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
8. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1316, 31USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
9. T 1173/97 (OJ 1999, 609).
10. JPO. Examination guidelines for patent and utility model in Japan, Part VII, Chapter 1 (2001).
11. State Street Bank & Trust Co. vs. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 47 USPQ 2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
12. Formulating and communication rejections under 35 USC 103 for applications directed to computer-implemented business method inventions, IV. A. Example 12: Rationale reasoned from the difference is the data being stored (2000).
13. Case of an herbicidal imidazole derivative, Tokyo High Court, 1990 (Gyo Ke), Decision No. 243 (H6.3.22). As comparable case, Case of natriuretic peptide Tokyo High Court, 1998 (Gyo Ke), Decision No. 393 (H13.3.15).
14. EPO. Guidelines for examination in the EPO, Part C, Chapter III, 4.7a, June 2000.
15. Case of a muscarine-like receptor antagonist, Tokyo High Court, 2001 (Gyo Ke), Decision No. 345 (H14.10.1). As comparable case, Case of antimetic drug, Tokyo High Court, 1996 (Gyo Ke), Decision No. 201 (H10.10.30).