Archive for the ‘Non-U.S. Practice’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Mumbo Jumbo: The Patentability of Biological Materials In Australia

Friday, February 25th, 2011

From Vaughn Barlow of Pizzeys Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys.

1. Introduction

The Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill (2010) is currently being debated before the Australian parliament. The Bill seeks to ban the patenting of all biological material that is “identical or substantially identical to such materials as they exist in nature”. If passed, this legislation would represent a major shift in Australian patent law. It may also significantly jeopardize the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical and agricultural industries in Australia.  This article therefore examines the current patentability of biological materials in Australia, charts the evolution of public debate surrounding this issue, sets out the proposed ban on patentable subject matter, and briefly discusses the ramifications of such a ban.

You can download the entire article here.

Patentability of biological materials in AU FINAL VPB

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Comments Off

European Union Patent Update

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Authored by Ms. Camilla Rendal Nielsen of Zacco Denmark A/S

Latest news: Finally on the road towards an EU patent: Only Spain and Italy so far outside proposal to create a new EU-patent

After failing to reach an agreement on an EU patent in December particularly due to Spain’s persistent opposition to leaving out Spanish as one of the main languages, the EU has taken a leap towards implementing a unitary patent protection, in short the new EU patent, which will bring significant cost savings for pan- European protection.

All EU member states, except Italy and Spain, have indicated that they will sign up for a procedure allowing some Member States to proceed towards a new EU patent under a scheme called “enhanced co-operation”. The proposal was put forward by twelve Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and this proposal, after approval by the European Parliament on February 15, is now moving through the EU Council and Commission.

According to the proposal, the new EU patent will be:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Comments Off

Divided We Fall – New Rules Limit Divisional Applications in Australia

Monday, February 14th, 2011

This is a guest post from Bill Bennett of Pizzeys.

Where a divisional application presents claims for examination which have been previously rejected in the parent (or grand-parent) application, then the APO will give the applicant only 2 months to respond and overcome the rejection (rather than the usual 21 months).

If the applicant does not overcome the rejection within the 2 month period, the APO will offer the applicant the opportunity to be heard before any further action (e.g. formal refusal of the application) will occur.

Full information regarding this new procedure for the case management of divisional applications can be found in the Examiner’s Manual (please refer to part 2.10.11).  You can find the Examiner’s Manual here.

The APO has just issued the first 5 formal refusals of applications under this new system.  Please note that in each of these 5 applications, the applicant failed to respond in the 2 month period AND the applicant failed to respond to the opportunity to be heard.  In each of the 5 cases, the application was then formally refused by the APO.  Links to each of the 5 formal refusals are provided below.

Schering

Scott Laboratories

McNeil PPC

Qualcomm

Senomyx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Comments Off

UK Patent Applications On The Fast Track – Nothing Extra Payable

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

Guest post from Paul Cole of Lucas & Co.

Claims searched, examined and approved for grant (subject to publication and possible third party comments) within six working days? Not only theoretically possible but actually achieved in an application filed earlier this year at the UK IP Office through our firm. And in contrast to the situation in the US, achieved at no additional cost to the applicant.

The UK IP Office offers three types of accelerated service:

  • Combined search and examination (CSE)
  • Accelerated search and/or examination
  • Early publication

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Non-U.S. Practice | Comments Off

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »