Do You Really Want to File for Pharma Patent Protection in Canada, India or Ecuador?

IPO Letter Reports Weaknesses in IP Protection Around the World

In a 27 page letter dated February 8, 2018 and sent to Sue Chang at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Executive Director of IPO, Mark Lauroesch, extensively summarizes the flaws in IP protection in a number of countries, including Argentina, China, Mexico, Brazil, India and South Africa, including some you might not expect to be on such a list, such as Australia and Canada. There is a particular emphasis on the ability to effectively claim pharmaceuticals and to keep and enforce such patents if issued. Continue reading

Posted in Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Int'l Practice and Policy, Non-U.S. Practice | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Chinese Team Reports Cloning Two Monkeys Using the Same Nuclear Donor – But Don’t Try to Patent Them!

On January 25, a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences published an online paper that will appear in Cell, 172, 1-7 (Feb. 8, 2018) reported the cloning of two Macaque Monkeys by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. While non-primate animals such as mice, sheep (remember Dolly) and bovines have been successfully cloned, primates had not.

For an introduction to the technology involved, please read my paper in 83 JPTOS 830 (Nov. 2001), which covered both the state of the science and the law: “The Evolution of Patents on Life – Transgenic Animals, Clones and Stem Cells.” Among other topics, I wrote about the successful cloning of Dolly and continued: Continue reading

Posted in Section 101, Stem Cells/Cloning | Leave a comment

Aptalis Fails to “Surround’ Apotex’s Generic ER Tablet

Although non-precedential, Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1344 (Fed. Cir., January 4, 2018) provides a useful outline of Phillips-type claim construction and requires a close reading to see why the infringement finding by the district court was reversed.

In this Hatch-Waxman litigation, Aptalis asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,790,199 and 7,289,121 against Apotex’s extended release (ER) version of cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride (“the drug”). The Fed. Cir. panel noted that there are two routes to make ER tablets disclosed in the patents – the membrane system in which an inert core is coated with the active drug yielding a core that is further coated with polymer membrane that controls the rate of release of the drug from the tablet once it is ingested, and the matrix system in which the tablets are formed by mixing the drug with the polymer and granulating it to yield beads with ER properties. Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Federal Court, Hatch-Waxman | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Twelve §101 Precedential Decisions of 2017

2017 Year in Review - Patents

This is a guest post from the Chisum Patent Academy.

In 2017, Federal Circuit panels regularly addressed attacks on software patent claims as ineligible under the Alice “abstract idea” exception.

The 2017 pattern, with 8 of 10 decisions finding software claims not eligible, was similar to that in 2016 (10 of 14).

The penultimate patent-invalidating decision of the year, Smart Systems (by Judge Wallach) drew an impassioned partial dissent by Judge Linn, protesting that the “abstract idea exception” was “almost impossible to apply consistently and coherently.” Hard to dispute that! Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court | Leave a comment