tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8198219012839640710..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Monsanto's GM Soya Patent AppealVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56494890068185661282007-06-20T19:19:00.000+01:002007-06-20T19:19:00.000+01:00The decision is now published. It deals mainly wit...The decision is now published. It deals mainly with the question of whether one of the opponents had proved he existed (Held, No - though no decision on whether he actually existed). On novelty, the term 'foreign gene', in the context, held to include genes introduced by means other than genetic transformation - which was known. Nothing on insufficient disclosure. Told that the Board intended to find against them on this point, the Proprietors withdrew all Auxiliary Requests - so having found the Main Request unsubstantiated, there was nothing further for the Appeal Board to decide. Devilish cunning!twr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81526140100929942602007-05-05T08:34:00.000+01:002007-05-05T08:34:00.000+01:00Quite satisfying to see the end of this patent aft...Quite satisfying to see the end of this patent after chasing it for 13 years. Daniel Alexander appeared at the Hearing for my clients, and the quality of his presentation made life very difficult for the patentee. The opposition was brought to knock out the product claims, which we regarded as ridiculous, and the success against the process claims was a bonus. But Monsanto were in difficulties. The patent was granted to Agracetus, and Monsanto were among the half-dozen original opponents. As opponents, they filed detailed and credible evidence that the disclosure was not repeatable. Then, three or four years into the opposition, they changed their minds and bought the patent from Agracetus.<BR/><BR/>The grounds for the decision on novelty could be interesting. We argued (inter alia) that claim 17 was really a 'product-by-process' claim, distinguished from known soya only by the process by which it was made. If so, it covers (according to EPO ideas) products 'capable of being made by' that process - which (we argued) would include conventional soya. The only distinction from the prior art was the requirement for a 'foreign' gene. But can that be a proper way of distinguishing new from old? A claim to a known chemical compound substituted by a 'novel group' (not further specified) would surely be laughed out of court?<BR/><BR/>We didn't get to argue either obviousness, or other questions such as morality or overbreadth of claim, though the latter point may obviously be dealt with in the decision.<BR/><BR/>Enough for now...!<BR/><BR/>Cheers, Tim<BR/>Leuven, 5 Maytwr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71110577448517805392007-05-04T09:02:00.000+01:002007-05-04T09:02:00.000+01:00Many thanks Tim for this. If you have time to imp...Many thanks Tim for this. If you have time to impart more of the details before the decision is published, please do let the IPKat know.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16622213306394768402007-05-04T08:54:00.000+01:002007-05-04T08:54:00.000+01:00The patent was revoked (all claims invalid) at the...The patent was revoked (all claims invalid) at the hearing on 3 May. The product claim (all GM soya) were held not novel, the process claims insufficiently disclosed.<BR/><BR/>Tim Roberts<BR/>Agent for the Opponents ETCtwr57https://www.blogger.com/profile/02330827817659112019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82714037089024338522007-04-30T09:01:00.000+01:002007-04-30T09:01:00.000+01:00I'm sure the opponents have thought of that argume...I'm sure the opponents have thought of that argument, but it was determined during the opposition proceedings that 'foreign' was supposed to mean that the modification was as a result of artificially introducing exogeneous gene sequences. If you know of published work before 1988 that succeeded in creating artificially modified soybeans (whether by viruses or otherwise), I'm sure the opponents would be interested to see it.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15410822489240863262007-04-29T23:27:00.000+01:002007-04-29T23:27:00.000+01:00"A soybean seed which will yield upon cultivation ..."A soybean seed which will yield upon cultivation a soybean plant comprising in its genome a foreign gene effective to cause the expression of a foreign gene product in the cells of the soybean plant"<BR/><BR/>Mmmh, I'm not a specialist in biotech, but that reads as if it would cover not only every GM soybean seed, but even such seeds which naturally infected by a virus...Hasn't a single opponent thought of that argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com