Features of invention application consideration containing Markush structures in the light of experience of foreign jurisdictions (part 2)

National patent offices have different approaches to examining applications with Markush structures, which raise the need to harmonize the activities of patent offices. The purpose of the study is to analyze approaches to the examination of patent offices of the Russian Federation, Japan, Korea and China in relation to applications with Markush structures, as well as to analyze specific cases of examination of applications. It has been established that different tools for assessing the sufficiency of disclosure, patentability, clarity and unity of claims with Markush structures in different patent offices lead to different scope of rights received by the applicant. Cases have been identified in which different national patent offices record different violations in the same initial claims. The need to achieve uniformity in the actions of experts from national offices is shown in order to make similar decisions on applications with Markush structures. 

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: 11 August 2024).

2. Wagner, S., Sternitzke, C. and Walter, S. (2022), “Mapping Markush”, Research Policy, vol. 51, no 10. pp.1–14.

3. 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. 1–56.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Meshcheryakov, V.A. (2016), “Crisis of russian patent law in pharmaceutical sphere”, IPC Magazine, no 13, pp. 30–37.

10. 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.

11. Polyakova, A. A. and Utkina, E. A. (2007), Dostatochnost svedenij, predstavlyaemyh v materialah zayavki, dlya ocenki sootvetstviya izobreteniya v oblasti himii i mediciny usloviyam patentosposobnosti: metodicheskije rekomendacii [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: methodological recommendations], INIC “Patent”, Moscow, Russia.

12. 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