Features of invention application consideration containing Markush structures in the light of experience of foreign jurisdictions (part 1)
Abstract
National patent offices have various tools for examining applications with Markush claims, which necessitates the creation of universal approaches for the examination of such applications. The purpose of the study is to analyze approaches to examination by the US Patent Office, as well as the Eurasian and European Patent Offices in relation to applications with Markush structures. By studying the guidelines for conducting examinations of these patent offices, an analysis of the approaches of patent offices in relation to such applications was carried out. It has been established that the US Patent Office, as well as the Eurasian and European Patent Offices, have different tools for assessing the sufficiency of disclosure, patentability, clarity and unity of claims with Markush structures, which requires harmonization of their activities. An analysis of approaches to examination by other patent offices, as well as examples of consideration of the same applications by different patent offices will be given in the second part of this work.
About the Authors
A. A. Polyakova
Federal Institute of Industrial Property
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna A. Polyakova, Deputy Director
Moscow, Berezhkovskaya emb., 30 bld. 1
N. B. Lyskov
Federal Institute of Industrial Property
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay B. Lyskov, Head of the Center for Chemistry, Biotechnology and Medicine
Moscow, Berezhkovskaya emb., 30 bld. 1
N. V. Zaryanov
Federal Institute of Industrial Property
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay V. Zaryanov, Leading State Expert on Intellectual Property
Moscow, Berezhkovskaya emb., 30 bld. 1
References
1. WIPO (2023), Summary: further study on the sufficiency of disclosure (Part II), 16–20 October, available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_35/scp_35_5_summ.pdf (Accessed: 4 April 2024).
2. Wagner, S., Sternitzke, C. and Walter, S. (2022), “Mapping Markush”, Research Policy, vol. 51, no 10. pp.1–14.
3. Kirij, L.L. (2016), “Problems of patenting, use and protection of invention rights in the field of healthcare”, VIII Forum on intellectual property EXPOPRIORITY-2016 and scientific and practical conference of Rospatent “Intellectual Property – the innovative potential of Russia”, Moscow, Expocentre Fairgrounds, Krasnopresnenskaya emb.
4. Holman, C.M. (2017) “In Defense of Secondary Pharmaceutical Patents: A Response to the UN’s Guidelines for Pharmaceutical Patent Examination”, Indiana Law Review, vol. 50, no 3, pp. P. 1–56.
5. Wang, P. – H., Chen, J. – H. and Tseng, Y.J. (2022), “Intelligent pharmaceutical patent search on a near term gate based quantum computer”, Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no 175, pp. 1–8.
6. Martirosov, А. А. Martirosov, А.K., Goncharenko, D.I., Zachepin, V.M. and Ivanchenko, V. A. (2004), “Application of Markush formulas in modern chemical information systems: methodological and software-technological tools”, Sci. – Tech.I. Series 2. Information processes and systems, no 4, pp. 21–33.
7. Zalesov, А.V. (2022), “On the contradiction of extending several patents related to the same drug”, Intellectual property. Industrial property, no 5, pp. 23–31.
8. Karshtedt, D., Lemley, M.A. and Seymore, S.B. (2021), “The death of the genus claim”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 35, no 1, pp. 1–72.
9. Galkowskaya, V.G., Lyskov, N.B., Polyakova, A.A. and Krivoruchko, T.E. (2019), “Applications for inventions relating to derivatives of known substances: a new perspective”, Patent and licensies. IP rights, no 8, pp. 24–37.
10. Osipov, K.V. (2016), “Extension of the validity period of patent protection of medicines in Russia (review of legislative changes”, Razrabotka i registraciya lekarstvennyh sredstv, no 2, pp. 216–220.
11. Meshcheryakov, V.A. (2016), “Crisis of russian patent law in pharmaceutical sphere”, IPC Magazine, no 13, pp. 30–37.
12. Zalesov, A.V. (2019), “Features of patent protection in the field of pharmaceuticals in Russia”, Proceedings of the International Conference “Intellectual Property Rights: Challenges of the 21st Century”, Tomsk, Publishing House of Tomsk State University, pp. 52–65. DOI 10.17223/9785946218559/8.
13. Leonidov, N.B. and Miheeva, N.V. (2000), “Features of patent protection of chemicals”, Rossijskij himicheskij zhurnal [Russian Chemical Journal], no. 5, pp. 34–40.
14. Mikhailov, A.V. (2016), “The myth about the myth, or the birth of selective inventions from the paper foam”, IPC Magazine, no 14., pp. 58–70.
15. Susman, A. (2013), “Million-card monte: reforming the markush claim post-aia to save synthetic chemical innovation”, The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, no 12, pp.720–745.
16. Lubjanko, E. N. et al. (2004), “Osobennosti opredeleniya patentosposobnosti izobretenij, otnosyashchihsya k organicheskim soedineniyam” [Features of determining the patentability of inventions related to organic compounds], Inform. – izd. centr Rospatenta INIC, Moscow, Russia.
17. Polyakova, A.A. et al. (2007), “Dostatochnost” svedenij, predstavlyaemyh v materialah zayavki, dlya ocenki sootvetstviya izobreteniya v oblasti himii i mediciny usloviyam patentosposobnosti” [Sufficiency of the information provided in the application materials to assess the compliance of an invention in the field of chemistry and medicine with the conditions of patentability], INIC “Patent”, Moscow, Russia.
18. Ignatov, M. E. et al. (2018), “Features of patent protection of chemical compounds and methods of obtaining them in the Eurasian Patent Office”, Intellectual property. Industrial property, no 4, pp. 57–66.
Review
For citations:
Polyakova A.A., Lyskov N.B., Zaryanov N.V. Features of invention application consideration containing Markush structures in the light of experience of foreign jurisdictions (part 1). Bulletin of Federal institute of industrial property. 2024;3(3):232-241. (In Russ.)
Views:
14
JATS XML
Email this article 