-
1
-
-
25444479262
-
-
Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO, a consultative body comprising representatives from the applicant community
-
Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO, a consultative body comprising representatives from the applicant community.
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
25444464527
-
-
OJ EPO 5/2000, 228
-
OJ EPO 5/2000, 228.
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
25444473547
-
-
This number of well-drafted claims should be enough to cover most inventions. There are many examples of famous patents that are models of brevity. The original patent on the transistor, for example (US2524033, issued 3 Oct. 1950), had only 19 claims, covering less than one-and-a-half pages
-
This number of well-drafted claims should be enough to cover most inventions. There are many examples of famous patents that are models of brevity. The original patent on the transistor, for example (US2524033, issued 3 Oct. 1950), had only 19 claims, covering less than one-and-a-half pages.
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
25444507300
-
-
EPO figures show that the percentage of PCT applications having 35 or more claims rose from 6% in 1996 to 11% in 1997
-
EPO figures show that the percentage of PCT applications having 35 or more claims rose from 6% in 1996 to 11% in 1997.
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
25444499061
-
-
Ex parte Markush 1925 CD 126, 340 OG 839 (Comm'r Patent 1924), discussed in "Chisum on Patents. A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement" 8-119 to 8-134 (Matthew Bender 1998)
-
Ex parte Markush 1925 CD 126, 340 OG 839 (Comm'r Patent 1924), discussed in "Chisum on Patents. A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement" 8-119 to 8-134 (Matthew Bender 1998).
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
25444432447
-
-
Quoted in D.S. CHISUM, op. cit. at 8-134
-
Quoted in D.S. CHISUM, op. cit. at 8-134.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
0026113011
-
Very Broad Markush Claims, a Solution or a Problem?
-
Proceedings of a Round-Table Discussion Held on August 29, 1990
-
"Very Broad Markush Claims, A Solution or a Problem?" Proceedings of a Round-Table Discussion Held on August 29, 1990, G.A. MILNE, 1991 J Chem Inf Comput Sci 31, 9-30.
-
(1991)
J Chem Inf Comput Sci
, vol.31
, pp. 9-30
-
-
Milne, G.A.1
-
8
-
-
25444488414
-
The Markush Challenge
-
See also L.J. BROWN, "The Markush Challenge", 1991 J Chem Inf Comput Sci 31, 2-4;
-
(1991)
J Chem Inf Comput Sci
, vol.31
, pp. 2-4
-
-
Brown, L.J.1
-
9
-
-
0007296772
-
Too Broad Generic Disclosures: A Problem for All
-
J.F. SIBLEY, "Too Broad Generic Disclosures: A Problem for All", 1991 J Chem Inf Comput Sci 31, 5-9;
-
(1991)
J Chem Inf Comput Sci
, vol.31
, pp. 5-9
-
-
Sibley, J.F.1
-
10
-
-
0011457113
-
A Giant Step for Mankind?
-
K.E.H. GOHRING & J. SIBLEY, "A Giant Step for Mankind?" 1989 WPI 5;
-
(1989)
WPI
, pp. 5
-
-
Gohring, K.E.H.1
Sibley, J.2
-
11
-
-
0030098214
-
Are Markush Structures Matters of Chemistry and Law or just Figments of the Imagination?
-
and E.A. USTINOVA, "Are Markush Structures Matters of Chemistry and Law or just Figments of the Imagination?", 18 World Patent Information, No. 1, at 23-31 (1996).
-
(1996)
World Patent Information
, vol.18
, Issue.1
, pp. 23-31
-
-
Ustinova, E.A.1
-
12
-
-
0032405107
-
Chemical Patents and Structural Information - The Sheffield Research in Context
-
January
-
See, for example, G.M. DOWNS & J.M. BARNARD, "Chemical Patents and Structural Information - The Sheffield Research in Context", 54 Journal of Documentation, No. 1, January 1998, at 106-120.
-
(1998)
Journal of Documentation
, vol.54
, Issue.1
, pp. 106-120
-
-
Downs, G.M.1
Barnard, J.M.2
-
13
-
-
25444533469
-
-
note
-
The Grand Combinability Index case is also, of course, an example of a Type III application: a desideratum expressed in terms of an unusual parameter. In T 409/91, 1994 OJ EPO 653, discussed further below, the desideratum was also expressed in terms of a unusual parameter, namely the crystal size of wax crystals at 10 degrees below Wax Appearance Temperature.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
25444459811
-
-
note
-
The BEST project (Bringing Examination and Search Together) has in recent years eroded the distinction.
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
25444445986
-
-
Rel 26.7 2nd ed., FT Law & Tax, London, Matthew Bender, New York
-
See, for example, "The European Patents Handbook" Volume 1, Rel 26.7 (2nd ed., FT Law & Tax, London, Matthew Bender, New York, 1997);
-
(1997)
The European Patents Handbook
, vol.1
-
-
-
16
-
-
0029417397
-
Patenting Human Genes in Europe
-
STRAUS, "Patenting Human Genes in Europe", 26 IIC 920, 942 (1995);
-
(1995)
IIC
, vol.26
, pp. 920
-
-
Straus1
-
17
-
-
25444449402
-
Der zu weite Patentanspruch
-
BRANDI-DOHRN, "Der zu weite Patentanspruch", GRUR Int. 1995, 541-547;
-
GRUR Int. 1995
, pp. 541-547
-
-
Brandi-Dohrn1
-
19
-
-
0040702083
-
Broad Claims for Biotechnological Inventions
-
Opinion
-
T. ROBERTS, "Broad Claims for Biotechnological Inventions", Opinion: [1994] 9 EIPR 371-373.
-
(1994)
EIPR
, vol.9
, pp. 371-373
-
-
Roberts, T.1
-
20
-
-
25444443539
-
Broad Claims - A Nuisance?
-
J. WIBBELMANN, "Broad Claims - A Nuisance?", [1997] 9 EIPR 515-521.
-
(1997)
EIPR
, vol.9
, pp. 515-521
-
-
Wibbelmann, J.1
-
21
-
-
0003796865
-
-
Clarendon Press
-
The quid pro quo contract model is very old, and traces of it can be found in the Venetian decree of 1474, which set out that 10-year monopolies would be granted to "men of most clever minds" who invented and made things "of new and ingenious contrivance" that were of "utility and benefit to our State". See P. GRUBB, "Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology" 10-11 (Clarendon Press 1999).
-
(1999)
Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology
, pp. 10-11
-
-
Grubb, P.1
-
22
-
-
0029417397
-
Patenting Human Genes in Europe
-
See also STRAUS, "Patenting Human Genes in Europe", 26 IIC 920, 935-942 (1995). Straus identifies (at footnote 68) a passage in the judgement in the 1745 Arkwright case (1 WPC 60, 64 (1785)) referring to the quid pro quo model as being "settled [English] law".
-
(1995)
IIC
, vol.26
, pp. 920
-
-
Straus1
-
23
-
-
21844488688
-
Patent Scope in Biotechnology
-
J.H. BARTON, "Patent Scope in Biotechnology", 26 IIC 605-618 (1995);
-
(1995)
IIC
, vol.26
, pp. 605-618
-
-
Barton, J.H.1
-
24
-
-
0000797287
-
On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions
-
R.P. MERGES & R.N. NELSON, "On Limiting or Encouraging Rivalry in Technical Progress: The Effect of Patent Scope Decisions", 25 Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1-24 (1994);
-
(1994)
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
, vol.25
, pp. 1-24
-
-
Merges, R.P.1
Nelson, R.N.2
-
25
-
-
22444456121
-
Intellectual Property
-
LORD TEMPLEMAN, "Intellectual Property", 1 J Int Econ Law 603, 604 (1998);
-
(1998)
J Int Econ Law
, vol.1
, pp. 603
-
-
Templeman, L.1
-
27
-
-
84936894410
-
The Inventor Who Claimed Too Much
-
O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 US (15 How) 62 (1853). The Morse story is recounted in "Chisum on Patents", §7.03[7], 7-108, 109, and referred to in Biogen v. Medeva [1997] RPC 1, 28 IIC 740 (1997) See also July/August
-
O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 US (15 How) 62 (1853). The Morse story is recounted in "Chisum on Patents", §7.03[7], 7-108, 109, and referred to in Biogen v. Medeva [1997] RPC 1, 28 IIC 740 (1997). See also M.M. KLEE, "The Inventor Who Claimed Too Much", IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, July/August 1995,
-
(1995)
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology
-
-
Klee, M.M.1
-
29
-
-
25444495134
-
-
T 409/91, 1994 OJ EPO 653
-
T 409/91, 1994 OJ EPO 653.
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
25444496599
-
-
See particularly WIBBELMANN, loc. cit.
-
See particularly WIBBELMANN, loc. cit.
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
25444530232
-
-
See supra note 16
-
See supra note 16.
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
25444501994
-
-
note
-
One fact about T 409/91 has not, as far as the present authors are aware, previously been noted in the literature. The application was one of three filed on the same date by Exxon. All three dealt with exactly the same subject-matter, judging from the examples. One claimed a waxy fuel oil having very good low temperature properties (the application that was the subject of T 409/91). Another claimed the additive itself in the normal (Markush) manner. The third application claimed the use of an additive whereby the additive was almost exclusively defined by means of a highly unusual parameter: possession of a molecular spacing and configuration such that the substituents of the additive occupied defined positions on planes of a wax crystal molecule.
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
25444527043
-
-
note
-
See, for example, T 770/90, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 3rd ed. (CLBA) page 199, at point 2.4, citing with approval T 133/85, 1988 OJ EPO 441; T 435 /91, 1995 OJ EPO 188, at point 2.2.; T 659/93 (unpublished), at points 3.1 to 3.4; T 418/91, at point 4.1.4; see CLBA at 149; T 548/91 (unpublished), at point 3.1; see CLBA at 149; T 656/ 91 (unpublished), at point 3.6; T 612/92 (unpublished) (incorporation of foreign DNA into the genome of certain plants), at points 17 to 18.5, 23 to 24; see CLBA at 150, 155; T 923/92, 1996 OJ EPO 564; T 634/92 (unpublished), at points 4.2 - 4.4 (support); T 639/92 (unpublished), at points 3.2 -3.3; T 206/93 (unpublished); T 322/93 (unpublished) obiter at point 3; see CLBA at 150; T 556/93 (unpublished), at point 3; T 445/97 (unpublished), at point 6.3. In T 720/92 (unpublished), T 292/85 was distinguished, and T 409/91 applied (see point 3.2.4 of the Reasons) to come to a conclusion rejecting the main request of the applicant on appeal from a rejection in ex parte proceedings. On essential features, T 409/91 was followed by T 583/93, 1996 OJ EPO 496, at point 7.4; and in T 1055/97 (unpublished), at point 10 of the Reasons.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
25444531906
-
-
T 292/85,1989 OJ EPO 275; and T 19/90, 1990 OJ EPO 476
-
T 292/85,1989 OJ EPO 275; and T 19/90, 1990 OJ EPO 476.
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
25444432959
-
-
note
-
See, for example, T 282/86 (unpublished), at point 7; and T 283/86, CLBA at 157, at point 5, (two cases involving DNA technology and monoclonal antibodies respectively). Another case that took a liberal view of disclosure in an application relating to rDNA technology was T 128/92 (unpublished), at point 6. T 292/85 was also approved in T 673/89 (unpublished), at point 3.2; T 610/90 (where a distinction between the approach adopted in ex parte pre-grant (liberal) and post grant (not so liberal) proceedings was noted (!)): see point 3.1; T 97/91 (unpublished), at point 3.4; T393/91 (unpublished), at point 4; T456/91 (unpublished), at point 4.1, see CLBA at 149; T 676/91 (unpublished), at point 9; T 242/92 at point 3, see CLBA 149; T 311/93 (unpublished), at point 3.5; T 588/93, 1997 OJ EPO, SE, at point 3; T 356/94 (unpublished), at point 5.3; T 386/94, 1996 OJ EPO 658, at point 9; T464/94 (unpublished), at point 10; T 13/96 (unpublished), at point 3.1; and T 263/96, at point 2.2.
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
25444437644
-
-
[1997] RFC 1
-
[1997] RFC 1, 28 IIC 740 (1997).
-
(1997)
IIC
, vol.28
, pp. 740
-
-
-
37
-
-
25444529861
-
-
note
-
The opinion of the House of Lords on sufficiency was, strictly speaking, obiter, as the House had held that the patent was invalid for obviousness. Lord Hoffmann's "whole new principle" distinction of T 292/85 is very similar to a distinction discovered in T 694/92, issued just before the House of Lords decision, but published in the Official Journal only afterwards.
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
25444444417
-
Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions
-
See M. KERN, "Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions", 29 IIC 281 (1998);
-
(1998)
IIC
, vol.29
, pp. 281
-
-
Kern, M.1
-
39
-
-
84899245446
-
Delivering the Goods? the House of Lords' decision in Biogen v. Medeva
-
I. KARET, "Delivering the Goods? The House of Lords' decision in Biogen v. Medeva", Comments: [1997] 1 EIPR 21, at 25 and 26;
-
(1997)
EIPR
, vol.1
, pp. 21
-
-
Karet, I.1
-
42
-
-
25444501993
-
Trends in UK Patent Litigation: The Age of Reason?
-
G. HARRIS, "Trends in UK Patent Litigation: The Age of Reason?", [1999] EIPR 254, 259-260.
-
(1999)
EIPR
, pp. 254
-
-
Harris, G.1
-
43
-
-
25444482001
-
Genetic Engineering - Failure to Invent? the House of Lords' Decision in 'Biogen Inc v. Medeva'
-
For a different view, see C. COLSTON, "Genetic Engineering - Failure to Invent? The House of Lords' Decision in 'Biogen Inc v. Medeva'", [1997] Intellectual Property Quarterly, No. 4, 521-529;
-
(1997)
Intellectual Property Quarterly
, Issue.4
, pp. 521-529
-
-
Colston, C.1
-
44
-
-
25444522390
-
Biotechnology: 'Biogen v. Medeva' in the House of Lords
-
A. MCINERNEY, "Biotechnology: 'Biogen v. Medeva' in the House of Lords", [1998] EIPR 14. Cases subsequent to Biogen include Monsanto and Others v. Merck (4th February 2000), and American Home Products v. Novartis (27th July 2000). In Monsanto, Pumphrey J applied the Biogen test to come to the conclusion that the patentee had not delivered over the whole of the claimed range (a broad Markush claim), and that the claim was therefore insufficient and unsupported. In American Home Products, Laddie J's finding at first instance had been that the patent, though it claimed only the single compound rapamycin, in fact extended to derivates of rapamycin, and was therefore infringed by the defendant's compound. The Court of Appeal overturned this finding. On a proper construction, rapamycin derivatives lay outside the claim. If the claim had covered the derivatives, then the specification would have been insufficient, since the description did not disclose any derivatives at all that had been shown to work. The defendant's rapamycin derivative therefore did not infringe. Dutch and German courts reached similar views. For an interesting commentary on the English cases,
-
(1998)
EIPR
, pp. 14
-
-
Mcinerney, A.1
-
45
-
-
25444483756
-
Pioneering Pays - Or Does It?
-
see P. COLE, "Pioneering Pays - or Does It?", Comments: [2000] EIPR 534.
-
(2000)
EIPR
, pp. 534
-
-
Cole, P.1
-
46
-
-
25444455206
-
-
July 1999
-
July 1999.
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
25444509681
-
-
MPEP 2164.04
-
MPEP 2164.04.
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
25444505531
-
-
note
-
See T 409/91, and T 939/92, where the burden of proof of establishing an activity that was said to ground an inventive step was fixed firmly "upon the shoulders of the person alleging it" (T 939/92 at 2.6.1 and 2.6.2). The standard is the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
25444509108
-
-
1998 CLBA 169 and 1998 CLBA 170
-
1998 CLBA 169 and 1998 CLBA 170.
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
25444448907
-
-
note
-
A recent case is T 574/96 (unpublished), where a refusal of a very lengthy Markush claim on the basis that it was unclear because it was too complex was overturned on appeal. The Board apparently reached its decision based on the lack of cogency of the first instance objection to clarity.
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
25444436604
-
-
note
-
The request to amend was refused. Neither EPC nor PCT contain provisions allowing for amendment of the claims during the search stage of proceedings. Since no search had been carried out, no PCT Chapter II examination was carried out either (PCT Rule 66.1(e)), and the applicant had to enter the regional phase without the benefit of either a search or a preliminary examination report.
-
-
-
|