E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« Senate Patent Reform Bill: R.I.P.? | Main | USPTO to Appeal Tafas/GSK v. Dudas »

May 06, 2008

Comments

This reverses (appropriately) many of the mistaken applications of the WD requirement to address issues of scope in biotech claims. The problem will be two fold. First, examiners take time to incorporate new policy into practice (esp. if they don't agree with it) and second, many will take the position that since WD is met then enablement is met as well. The back and forth/piecemeal approach to addressing scope in biopharm patent prosecution makes the entire process unpredictable. Couple this with the recent appeal of the recently overturned rules packages, the moves by the house and senate to push through greater PTO authority and examination sharing among the US, Europe, and Japan, and we have an uncertain system that is likely to remain ambiguous for at least a few more years. With this level of uncertainty, the fate of the innovation pipeline among rapidly converging industries may well decide to go the trade secret route. Query: Who would this serve? Is the US the only nation with a true open market? If so, will an open marker system tolerate true IP globalism? Where is the voice of the backyard inventors?

The US system is not perfect, but until a complete and unified alternative that protects open marker innovation incentives is offered, is change for change sake worth it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31