NEWS
of the CJEU, which states that the use of an active ingredient does not form part of its definition for the purposes of an SPC application.”
He said the decision appears to be great news for the innovative pharmaceutical industry. It is the first time the CJEU has said an SPC can be issued for products containing a particular ingredient that are not the first to be approved.
But Snodin also said it will be some time before the full impact of the decision can be appreciated. “Tis is because the national courts and patent offices are unlikely to find a sufficiently clear and consistent line of reasoning in the decision that will allow them
to confidently apply the ruling to different factual scenarios.
“Te CJEU has further muddied the waters in relation to what was already a complex area of law that is very difficult for non-experts to understand. Companies producing different medical innovations will still not be certain whether they can benefit from SPCs. Tose companies are still likely to have a battle on their hands when seeking supplementary protection for their innovative products, at least until the CJEU has tackled the unenviable task of bringing true clarity to this area of the law.”
Facebook faces patent infringement claims over ‘timeline’ According to
A Chinese technology company is planning to sue Facebook aſter claiming it stole the idea for the ‘timeline’, a mandatory feature of all users’ accounts.
Cubic Network, which operates in a similar way to social networking site Pinterest, launched its own timeline in February 2008. In a similar vein to Facebook’s feature, created in 2011, the timeline allows users to display images and videos in chronological order.
reports in China, Harvard
graduate Xiong Wanli (founder of Cubic) held a talk at Stanford University aſter launching the timeline, and discussed how it worked. Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg apparently attended the talk.
The reports suggest that Cubic knew about potential patent infringement in 2011, when Facebook revealed its timeline, but has held off suing until now. They suggest that US lawyers
were responsible for reminding Cubic that Facebook may be violating its IP.
It is unclear whether Facebook’s initial public offering in May 2012 had a role in prompting the plans to sue the site. Tis is not the first time Facebook has been subject to a legal dispute: Zuckerberg and brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss fought a long-running battle over who founded the company. In June 2011, the brothers accepted a $65 million settlement from Facebook.
US court backs Myriad to patent genes linked to cancer
A US court has ruled for the second time that Myriad Genetics can patent two human genes that are strongly linked to most forms of breast and ovarian cancer.
Te US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit backed Myriad’s claims over the isolation and detection of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Te patents allow Myriad exclusively to perform tests that could help determine future treatment of the cancerous genes.
A number of parties including the Association for Molecular Pathology argued that the genes are a product of human nature—and should not be patented.
Te court ruled in Myriad’s favour in July last year, but following an appeal, the US Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appeals court in March 2012 following its decision in Mayo v Prometheus. In this latter case, similar to Myriad’s, the court invalidated two patents held by Prometheus which cover blood monitoring and medical tests.
On August 16, the appeal court’s ruling said: “We reverse the district court’s decision that Myriad’s composition claims to ‘isolated’ DNA molecules cover patent-ineligible products of nature … because each of the claimed molecules represents a non-naturally occurring composition of matter.
www.worldipreview.com
“We also reverse the district court’s decision that Myriad’s method claim to screening potential cancer therapeutics via changes in cell growth rates of transformed cells is directed to a patent- ineligible scientific principle.”
Te court backed the view, however, that Myriad’s method claims directed to comparing or analysing DNA sequences cannot be patented. “Such claims include no transformative steps and cover only patent-ineligible abstract, mental steps.”
In a statement, Myriad president and chief executive Peter Meldrum, welcomed the
decision: “Importantly, the court agreed with Myriad that isolated DNA is a new chemical matter with important utilities which can exist only as the product of human ingenuity.”
But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which opposed the patents, criticised the ruling. “Tis ruling prevents doctors and scientists from exchanging their ideas and research freely. Human DNA is a natural entity like air or water. It does not belong to any one company,” said Chris Hansen, staff attorney at the ACLU.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128