WIPO is in the process of redesigning sequence search for PATENTSCOPE and needs your help.
WIPO has launched a short survey (email login required) for users who search biological sequences (DNA, RNA, proteins) in patent databases. The 2-minute survey seeks to collate user feedback on not just what users want to find, but the process that users want to follow, as well as what works well and not so well in current tools.
 |
| DNA analysis |
The deadline to complete the survey is 20 May 2026.
Readers who use sequence databases are strongly encouraged to provide their views. There are of course many commercial players in the sequence search arena, but a free, easy-to-use and comprehensive patent sequence search tool would be beneficial for everyone. As biologics increasingly grow in complexity, we need ever more functionality from sequence tools. There are also industry benefits of not restricting this functionality to big law firms capable of paying the high subscription costs for commercial services.
Further reading
- ST. 26 sequence listings: A forward or backward step for ease of access to patent sequence data? (Feb 2022)
- EPO under fire for its approach to ST.26 sequence listings (Aug 2022)
- Looking beyond ST.26: Is it time for patent offices to enter the bioinformatic age? (7 April 2023)
- How to read a biotech patent (June 2025)
- Alexion's Soliris sequence error saga (Alexion v Samsung Bioepis [2025] EWHC 1240) (June 2025)
- Sequence identities and functional definitions - where is the limit? (T 0137/24) (April 2026)
Reviewed by Dr Rose Hughes
on
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html