Posts Tagged ‘Patent Law’

Savior or Candidate for “Worst Patentee”? Nutriset

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Last Sunday’s New York Times magazine had a provocative article about Plumpy’nut, a nutritive peanut paste that is foil-packaged so it does not need refrigeration. When eaten by malnourished children it can “cure” them in a relatively brief period of time. It is being touted as nearly a miracle food for countries in Africa or Central America, since peanuts are a cheap commodity in many of these countries and the product also does not require reconstitution with water.

However, Nutriset, a French company, is described as having patented this product essentially world-wide, and is characterized as aggressively defending its patents. (A copy of the U.S. patent is available at the end of this post.) Apparently, it has licensed the product in two African countries, but wants to make it in France. The advantages to, not just the health, but the economies of third-world countries, if they could manufacture and package the product locally, are clear. In fact, one organization has built a “factory” in Haiti and is making the product there. (Probably no Fed. Cir. equivalent to worry about.)

While recipes are notoriously difficult to patent in the U.S., it can be done, and the article reports that there is a U.S. patent on Plumpy’nut, which doesn’t expire until 2020. It is apparently the subject of an inter partes reexamination request, and so may not be around long. But if it is cancelled, the plot only thickens. The author speculates that big food companies, like General Mills or Cargill, may want to get into the business of manufacturing this or similar supplements and selling them to relief organizations, who would do the distribution. This may benefit a lot of children but it won’t do much for economic development in these countries and ultimately, may just provide lots of older and larger stomachs that need to be filled with something more substantial that fortified peanut butter.

patent 6346284

 

USPTO Issues “2010 KSR Guidelines Update”

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

On September 1st, the Office of Patent Legal Administration (I didn’t know there was one) issued 17 pages in the Fed. Reg. (Vol. 75, 53643) updating its obviousness guidelines. (A copy of the guidelines is found at the end of this post.)  The Update is mostly a meaty analysis of 22 post-KSR Fed. Cir. decisions, 12 of which are in the pharma/biotech area and nine of which deal with the principles of “structural obviousness.” The Guidelines state that apart from using the TSM test as a rationale “to  support an obviousness determination,” the 2007 KSR Guidelines identified six other rationales that can also be used: (1) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (2) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way; (4) applying a known technique to a known device, method or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (5) “obvious to try”; and (6) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variation of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to POSA.

The structural obviousness decisions are either used to illustrate “substituting one known element for another” or “obvious to try.” All the decisions are summarized by “teaching points,” some of which are simply put too broadly. For example, the teaching point for Aventis Pharma v Lupin, 499 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) is: “A chemical compound would have been obvious over a mixture containing that compound as well as other compounds where it was known or the skilled artisan had reason to believe that some desirable property of the mixture was derived in whole or in part from the claimed compound, and separating the claimed compound from the mixture was routine in the art.”

(more…)

Court Blocks Obama’s Stem Cell Order

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

In December of 2009, I argued that President Obama’s Executive Order 13505, that lifted President Bush’s 2001 Order banning the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, should be a Top Biotech Story of 2009. The Bush Order had banned all federal funding for ESC research except for research on a small number of lines that existed prior to his order. Obama’s substitute order permitted agencies like NIH to fund research on cell lines produced after the Bush ban, so long as the funding was not used to produce the lines by the destruction of embryos. NIH went on to develop guidelines for approving fundable new cell lines.

In the December 2009 post, I noted that Congress had annually enacted the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment that banned federally-funded research that harms or destroys human embryos. The Administration tried to argue that Order 13505 did not permit funding of obtention of ESCs from embryos, but the Judge found this a distinction without a difference.

Questions remain. While Judge Lamberth (D.C.D.C.) stated that the decision was intended to restore the status quo, the status quo, e.g., the Bush Order, is long gone. Research projects using newly approved lines have been started. Even if they can be continued with private funding, it is far from clear that these “illegal” cell lines can be used at all.  But what if the lines were produced abroad and sent to a U.S. lab? Would even the limited research permitted under the Bush order be fundable now? What is supposed to happen to ongoing projects that cannot find non-federal funds to keep the laboratory lights on? With patent protection for ESCs uncertain at best, the future of this research in the U.S. is cloudy at best.

Read New York Times Article on Judge Lamberth’s Decision.

University IP In The News – Expedited Examination And March-In Request

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

On July 29th, Rep. Frank Wolf (D.-Va.) introduced H.R. 5980 that would give priority to examination of patent applications filed by U.S. universities and by their “patent holding companies.” The definition of the latter seems a bit vague, but is apparently intended to cover entities like the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) that finances prep/pros of patents by University of Wisconsin inventors and licenses them to provide income to both entities. The patents are assigned to WARF when they issue. The bill would also limit the early publication of U.S. patents to their abstracts. The bill is clearly an attempt to levy an IP “tariff” on foreign inventors but, for those of us with big university practices, it is an intriguing concept (if not a good idea).

In a somewhat related news  item, a group of patients afflicted with Fabry’s disease have asked The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to “march in” under the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act, and permit/require Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, the owner of two patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5356804 and 5580757) covering the drug Fabrazyme, to grant additional licenses to manufacture and market the drug. This request is made under the “march in” provisions of the Bayh-Dole act, which founded the entire “industry” of university technology transfer in the 80’s. It is based on the allegation that Genzyme cannot meet the need for the drug, given its recent quality control problems. During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, such requests were made regarding the few anti-HIV drugs that were then available. As far as I know, none of the prior requests were granted.