Sufficiency of disclosure and genus claims for protection of biological sequences: a comparative study among the patent offices in Brazil, Europe and the United States

AbbVie Deutschland GmbH v. Janssen Biotechnology, Ltd., 759 F.3d 1285. (Fed. Cir. 2014). Brasil. (1996). Law n. 9.279 of May 14, 1996. Law on Industrial Property – Regulates rights and obligations related to industrial property. Accessed from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=125397. Biogen Inc v Medeva plc. (1997). RPC 1, [1996] UKHL 18, (1997) 38 BMLR 149, on appeal from the Court of Appeal – Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc [1995] FSR 4; [1995] RPC 25, and the Patents Court – Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc. (Unreported, November 4, 1993). Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084. (Fed. Cir. 2005). Carlson, 2016, Estimating the biotech sector's contribution to the US economy, Nature Biotechnology, 34, 247, 10.1038/nbt.3491 Carroll, 2018, The global virome project, Science, 359, 872, 10.1126/science.aap7463 Cole, 2015, Patentability of genes: A European Union perspective, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 5, 10.1101/cshperspect.a020891 De Luca, 2017, Patent disclosure requirements for therapeutic antibody patents, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 27, 867, 10.1080/13543776.2017.1296950 Dufresne, 2004, Genetic sequences: how are they patented?, Nature Biotechnology, 22, 231, 10.1038/nbt0204-231 EPO, European Patent Office. (2015). European Patent Convention. Implementing Regulations - to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ma2.html. EPO, European Patent Office. (2017). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/guidelines.html. Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839. (C.C.P.A. 1970). Giles, 2011, How to claim a gene: Application of the patent disclosure requirements to genetic sequences, Georgia State University Law Review, 27, 6 Holman, 2004, Protein similarity score: A simplified version of the blast score as a superior alternative to percent identity for claiming genuses of related protein sequences, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 21 In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4. (CCPA 1977). In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). INPI, Brazilian Industrial Property Institute. (2013). Guidelines for Patent Applications Examination – Patent Application: Title, Description, Claims, Drawings and Summary. Resolution n. 124/2013. Accessed from http://www.inpi.gov.br/legislacao-arquivo/docs/resolucao_124_diretrizes_bloco_1_versao_final_03_12_2013_0.pdf. INPI, Brazilian Industrial Property Institute. (2015). Brazilian Guidelines for Patent Applications Examination in Biotechnology. Resolution n. 144/2015. Accessed from http://www.inpi.gov.br/sobre/arquivos/resolucao_144-2015_-_diretrizes_biotecnologia.pdf. Kellam, 2001, Making sense out of antisense: The enablement requirement in biotechnology after Enzo Biochem v. Calgene, Indian Law Journal, 76, 221 Lewin, 2018, Earth BioGenome Project: Sequencing life for the future of life, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 4325, 10.1073/pnas.1720115115 Latimer, 2005, Patenting inventions arising from biological research, Genome Biology, 6, 203, 10.1186/gb-2004-6-1-203 Lung Tin IP (2017). Newsletter – China's Recent Development on Granting Biological Sequence Claims. http://www.lungtin.com/UploadFile/Files/2017/12/7/151833146ae51e203-2.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2018. McTavish, 2001, Enabling genus patent claims to DNA, Minnesota Intellectual Property Review, 2 OLRC, Office of the Law Revision Code. (2012). Title 35, United States Code, part II, chapter 11, section 112. Accessed from http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section112&num=0&edition=prelim. Ravi, 2013, Gene Patents in India: Gauging policy by an analysis of the grants made by the Indian Patent Office, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 18, 323 Sampson, 2000, The evolution of the enablement and written description requirements under 35 USC § 112 in the area of biotechnology, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1233 T 0727/95 (Cellulose) of 21.5.1999. Decision of Technical Board of Appeal. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950727ep1.html. T 1644/08 (Endoglucanases/NOVOZYMES) of 15.2.2011. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t081644eu1.html#q1644%2F08%20. T 1727/12 of of 1.2.2016. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t121727eu1.html. T 0172/99 of 7.3.2002. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. Accessed from https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t990172eu1.html. Tostmann, 2015, Protecting chemistry inventions: The double-edged sword of being an unpredictable art, ACS Medical Chemical Letters, 6, 364, 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00116 United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 186-187 (1933). USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2008). U.S. Dept of Commerce, Written Description Training Materials. Accessed from http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/menu/written.pdf. USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2009). Training materials for examining patent applications with respect to 35 u.s.c. section 112, first paragraph-enablement of chemical/biotechnical applications. Yoo, 2005, Intellectual property management of biosequence information from a patent searching perspective, World Patent Information, 27, 203, 10.1016/j.wpi.2005.02.001 Zhang, 2017, Call for Standardization in Patent Claim Drafting, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 34, 290