tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1495914938965989274..comments2024-03-28T11:16:43.146+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Pharma and biotech patents: a law unto themselves -- and a litigation conference to match?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42449009396740210882016-01-25T21:26:26.421+00:002016-01-25T21:26:26.421+00:00last anonymous,
I think that you have fallen into...last anonymous,<br /><br />I think that you have fallen into the definition trap.<br /><br />"Science fiction" - if it constitutes an[d] enabling disclosure - is <b>by definition</b> NOT fiction.<br /><br />These are mutually exclusive sets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40897494640755420712016-01-25T14:28:50.881+00:002016-01-25T14:28:50.881+00:00What a strange discussion I have come across. Am I...What a strange discussion I have come across. Am I to conclude that science fiction is not prior art, even if it constitutes and enabling disclosure, because such ideas are merely speculative, with such future predictions forming the foundations of the sci fi genre? With sci fi being a portal into the future, might the citing of such disclosures by an examiner be barred as hindsight analysis?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25344305039839957192015-02-06T21:47:51.413+00:002015-02-06T21:47:51.413+00:00Anon at 14:16
No, I am not saying that. I was res...Anon at 14:16<br /><br />No, I am not saying that. I was responding directly to the previous comment at 10:57. Obviously, if i was saying that you've caught me out, but then I didn't know I was debating with the Oracle. The EPO could do with you services in the search section.<br /><br />Anon at another time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45244833357731417062015-01-27T17:17:50.386+00:002015-01-27T17:17:50.386+00:00I've seen a case of a European Examiner citing...I've seen a case of a European Examiner citing 'Brave New World' against a claim that might have covered changing human behaviour. Can't find it now though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54483279420709318242015-01-27T16:03:25.468+00:002015-01-27T16:03:25.468+00:00To Anon of Saturday 24th @ 1420 - re Science Ficti...To Anon of Saturday 24th @ 1420 - re Science Fiction as prior art. Here is an article indicating that Bob Heinlein's description of the water bed in <i>Stranger in a Strange Land</i> was cited by the USPTO against a later patent application:<br />http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-waterbedfellows/<br /><br />(Admittedly, this is cited all over the web, but I can't find a reliable source for it).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23647830614060844522015-01-26T14:26:14.497+00:002015-01-26T14:26:14.497+00:00Anonymous at 10:57,
You had me nodding in agreeme...Anonymous at 10:57,<br /><br />You had me nodding in agreement up until your last sentence.<br /><br />I think that academics are the very <b>last</b> people that we need to rely on - at least the vast numbers of such related to the current Ivory Tower groupthink on patents and property.<br /><br />There is a much smaller group focusing on innovation that are worthwhile to listen to, but by and large they are not the same vocal group currently involved in the patent debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41874530123610154862015-01-26T14:21:10.932+00:002015-01-26T14:21:10.932+00:00Anon @ 13:16 are you saying there has been an exha...Anon @ 13:16 are you saying there has been an exhaustive recent study of all possible new rights we could have and it has been concluded we don't need any more? I've not seen something like that published anywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74671092864360004152015-01-26T13:38:51.625+00:002015-01-26T13:38:51.625+00:00Since I do not work in the bio-tech area, my knowl...Since I do not work in the bio-tech area, my knowledge of the law in this regard is severely limited. Having had a quick browse of this decision<br /><br />http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2015/T14012.html<br /><br />the provisions for orphan medicinal products seem to be at least very close to the idea of a sui generis protection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51529645689826537662015-01-26T13:16:30.950+00:002015-01-26T13:16:30.950+00:00Or perhaps not. Why do you assume pharma companies...Or perhaps not. Why do you assume pharma companies are 'entrenched' and unable do 'blue sky thinking'?<br /><br />It may surprise you, but the best pharma companies employ very bright people.<br /><br />In the IP arena it is the academics who unable to "blue-sky-think". Stuck in the "analysis-of-what-others-have-done" mode. I believe this was the topic of a blog posting several months ago.<br /><br />The patent system works perfectly well for pharma to cover the R&D phase and in many cases it works well to provide a monopoly of sufficient period (with SPC/PTE) to recoup the investment. Additional rights that already exist and work well are orphan designations and data exclusivity.<br /><br />Further sui generis protection, where deemed appropriate, would just need to be extensions of these existing exclusivity provisions.<br /><br />I'm sure those who work in other technology areas would believe the patent system suits the pharma industry much more than their own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11080128323405025752015-01-26T10:57:00.393+00:002015-01-26T10:57:00.393+00:00I think if one is going to think seriously about a...I think if one is going to think seriously about a new sui generis right for biotech/pharma products one needs to write a list of what is good and bad about the present system. The nice thing about patents is that they fit so well into the free marketplace. A research firm can decide on what R&D to do, how to patent it and how to commercialise it. If it fails and goes bankrupt that is how the system works, and the taxpayer did not suffer. Also I cannot see another way of protecting biotech/pharma inventions, apart from very specific SPC-type rights which are suited to late stage R&D. There's no way that pharma companies would be able to do the blue-sky thinking involved given how entrenched they are in the present system. So perhaps we need to rely on academics to make suggestions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28088797597490626632015-01-25T19:51:16.499+00:002015-01-25T19:51:16.499+00:00May as well have poked me with a wet fish for all ...May as well have poked me with a wet fish for all the impact you are having. Even then, you miss your target as there was no mention of 'speculative' in my comment. Unless the blog fairies added it to the words you can see. Pesky fairies! not to worry as I am sure you are right sometimes.<br /><br />I won't bother trying to explain the next wednesday thing to you as I am just not able enough to do so.<br /><br />For the other sensible commentator: I have ever heard of 'see you next wednesday', but find the coincidence rather spooky.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38279560791026628632015-01-25T19:08:47.697+00:002015-01-25T19:08:47.697+00:00I don't want to second guess what Anonymous me...I don't want to second guess what Anonymous meant by the Wednesday comment but I notice from Wikipedia: 'See You Next Wednesday is a recurring gag in most of the films directed by John Landis, usually referring to a fictional film that is rarely seen and never in its entirety. Each instance of See You Next Wednesday in Landis's films seems to be a completely different film.'<br /><br />Also I quite liked the 'knols' idea mentioned by another Anonymous. It would solve the old problem of trading in IP and then a 'knol' could be given a specific value.lightheartedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_Next_Wednesdaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63484524576797197822015-01-25T16:50:28.403+00:002015-01-25T16:50:28.403+00:00Anonymous @ 16:05 - if indeed you refer to an enab...Anonymous @ 16:05 - if indeed you refer to an enabling disclosure, then your statement is a contradiction.<br /><br />You cannot have an enabling disclosure and be speculative at the same time (that was kind of the point of the jab at you).<br /><br />As to Anonymous @ 16:10, you will have to be a bit more precise - what exactly is a comment (posted by anybody) - <b>next</b> Wednesday...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60485516203521155252015-01-25T16:10:42.731+00:002015-01-25T16:10:42.731+00:00Gee anon at 18:53 did you see that comment from th...Gee anon at 18:53 did you see that comment from the Kat posted next Wednesday? Sure you did! I am te poster of the very recently dated comment, but I posted this later one first. I think my understanding is correct this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10076076020342542282015-01-25T16:05:50.621+00:002015-01-25T16:05:50.621+00:00to anon at 18:53.
When I say the idea has been di...to anon at 18:53.<br /><br />When I say the idea has been disclosed, I am referring to an enabling disclosure. I get the differences between the world of science fiction and reality and don't ever feel a need to add extra explanation or caveats to my comments, for those that don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5603448790903898052015-01-25T13:43:29.758+00:002015-01-25T13:43:29.758+00:00Patents, or colloquially "monopolies" (t...Patents, or colloquially "monopolies" (they are different things) on anything totally or purely in the mind are <b>de facto</b> unenforceable.<br /><br />It only mucks up the conversation to entertain such "thoughts."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89970634653078432252015-01-25T11:51:31.880+00:002015-01-25T11:51:31.880+00:00Anon at 12:28 data per se is hard to protect. Peop...Anon at 12:28 data per se is hard to protect. People have defined 'cognitive units' of knowledge and Google has had the idea of pages devoted to 'knols' which are meant to be units of knowledge. Monopolies on knols is an interesting idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26414391148768900932015-01-24T18:53:40.669+00:002015-01-24T18:53:40.669+00:00Anonymous @ 17:48,
Your statement is simply too b...Anonymous @ 17:48,<br /><br />Your statement is simply too broad to sustain.<br /><br />To wit, the mere disclosure of an idea without enablement is NOT enough to block the "monopoly" of a patent.<br /><br />If it were, the ideas present in science fiction would eliminate patents. Such a notion is simply anathema to innovation, and bespeaks a lack of understanding of this area of law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76434187879237807282015-01-24T17:48:08.538+00:002015-01-24T17:48:08.538+00:00If an idea has been disclosed there is no just rea...If an idea has been disclosed there is no just reason for a monopoly. Live with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23329895666735547882015-01-24T14:20:26.619+00:002015-01-24T14:20:26.619+00:00Anonymous @ 12:28,
I think that your view is not ...Anonymous @ 12:28,<br /><br />I think that your view is not quite accurate enough.<br /><br />If that proposal were truly and merely speculative, then it would not be considered prior art for lack of enablement.<br /><br />Conversely, if the proposal is deemed enabling, then it cannot be considered speculative.<br /><br />AFAIK, science fiction is not yet considered prior art anywhere in the world for any patent system. Please provide a proper citation for a legal holding to the contrary if such exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74723320107892704612015-01-24T12:28:15.574+00:002015-01-24T12:28:15.574+00:00At the moment we have a patent system where millio...At the moment we have a patent system where millions of pounds of R&D can be rendered unprotectable because of prior art document such as a speculative proposal in a conference abstract 2 years ago. That seems silly. If we believe in the basic idea of patents protecting the fruits of R&D there are better ways of doing it than exist now. There must be new rules we can set up that protect R&D results per se.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71508010830524275102015-01-23T15:44:17.149+00:002015-01-23T15:44:17.149+00:00WIPO and OECD are always discussing emerging issue...WIPO and OECD are always discussing emerging issues in all IP areas, including biotech. The material they publish would be a good place to start if one wanted to set up the system again (see for example http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/biotrack/Biotech%20Update%20No%2028%20--%2019%20%20Dec%202014%20.pdf). Clearly, achieving consensus would be a challenge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33576746816041269962015-01-23T15:39:35.653+00:002015-01-23T15:39:35.653+00:00I certainly hope that the Kat has not stopped with...I certainly hope that the Kat has not stopped with merely reading Dr. Suliman's articles...<br /><br />The "but our area is '<i>different</i>' " meme has been largely discredited - the resulting fragmentation would yield a hopeless - and never ending - mess.<br /><br />One additional aspect to that mess is that the future innovations simply cannot be known a priori in order for legislation to nicely tie those innovations into nice bundled packages. Innovation simply does not work that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20603556495762434672015-01-23T14:34:35.013+00:002015-01-23T14:34:35.013+00:00A very interesting proposal to start afresh and ha...A very interesting proposal to start afresh and have a sui generis scheme for pharma/biotech.<br /><br />Imagine all the different things that would need to be discussed and all the different parties that would contribute. Strangely I think the UK is very well placed do that, being very good at drafting detailed legislation and having open debate. The US can be a bit trigger happy with legislation sometimes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com