DOCSLIB.ORG

Evergreening – a Controversial Issue in Pharma Milieu*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evergreening – a Controversial Issue in Pharma Milieu* Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 14, July 2009, pp 299-306 Evergreening – A Controversial Issue in Pharma Milieu* Inderjit Singh Bansal, Deeptymaya Sahu, Gautam Bakshi and Sukhjeet Singh† Panacea Biotec Ltd, Formulation & Research Facility, Sampann R&D, Ambala - Chandigarh Highway, Lalru, Punjab 140 501 Received 18 March 2009, revised 22 June 2009 A patent is an exclusive right awarded by the intellectual property (IP) authority of a state to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in lieu of disclosure of an invention for the benefit of mankind. In recent times, it has become a practice by a number of innovator companies to extend the patent term of their innovative molecules to maintain market dominance. The extension of monopoly term ‘Evergreening’ is a predominant aspect of pharmaceutical patenting. ‘Evergreening’ refers to different ways wherein patent owners take undue advantage of the law and associated regulatory processes to extend their IP monopoly particularly over highly lucrative ‘blockbuster’ drugs by filing disguised/artful patents on an already patent-protected invention shortly before expiry of the ‘parent’ patent. These artful patents tend to protect delivery profiles, packaging, derivatives, and isomeric forms, mechanism of action, dosing regimen, and dosing range, and dosing route, different methods of treatment, combinations, screening methods, biological targets and field of use for the same old molecule. This provides the innovator companies sufficient time to recoup their controversially estimated R&D costs. Patent monopolies thus should be designed to function at an optimum level wherein maximum incentive is accorded to investment in research followed by simultaneous accessibility of the protected inventions to the public. The TRIPS compliance has compelled pharma industries of the developing countries to innovate in order to cater to the requirement of current and future drugs. This paper covers different aspects of ‘evergreening’, its impact in the pharma IP domain and identifies means adopted for limiting evergreening. Keywords: Evergreening, TRIPS Agreement, Hatch-Waxman Act, market exclusivity, patent strategy, generics, paroxetine ‘Evergreening’ is an aspect of patenting that leads to continuation patent application, divisional patent ‘patent life cycle enhancement technique’ largely application, continuation-in-part patent application, employed by the pharmaceutical organizations to and application for patent of addition. ‘Evergreening’ develop ‘bullet proof’ patent portfolios around is a clever way of inducing extortion/threats to lucrative drug molecules .This is done in an artful competitors in the market about an innovator’s manner by protecting a large number of inventive tactical use of patents which results in potential loss to aspects over the basic invention (viz. NCE, NME, the competitors.2 Innovators thus erect ‘picket fences’ formulations etc.) by avoiding any imminent double or families of dozens of patents around a single drug patent rejection and eventually leading to extension of product and block a possible entry into the domain of patent terms to a further 20 year term for a single drug the innovator. product. Protection on such family of so called The controversial ‘Evergreening’ raises a number ‘lucrative molecules’ can at times act as a jackpot to of fundamental issues. Unless the later applications the multinational pharmaceutical organizations and disclose independent inventions, though linked to the continue to retain market monopoly. However, invention disclosed in the basic application, the ‘Evergreening’ perspective leads to the extension of allowance of the later application(s) can lead to patent terms provided the national patent law allows double patenting. Further, inclusion of multiple such flexibilities.1 inventions (consequently multiple independent The different methods to cover adjunct possibilities claims) in a single application can lead to objection on not disclosed in the basic patent are done by filing of the grounds of ‘unity of invention’. ________________ *The views expressed in this paper are those TRIPS Perspective of the authors alone and do not represent the views The TRIPS Agreement awards a negative or opinions of their employer organization (Panacea Biotec monopoly over rivals from using patented invention Limited) or its staff. The authors assume no legal responsibility for the views/information expressed in this paper. without consent of the patent holder for a term of †Email:Corresponding author: [email protected] 20 years irrespective of the field of technology. 300 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, JULY 2009 Article 27.1 of TRIPS stipulates that ‘patents shall be the poor even further out of reach ‘OR’ to give priority available for any inventions, whether products or to public health protections available within the TRIPS processes, in all fields of technology without Agreement. Debate is still going on and the Doha rounds discrimination, subject to the normal tests of novelty, have still not been able to deal with this aspect in the inventiveness and industrial applicability. It is also international perspective particularly with respect to the required that patents be available and patent rights developing and the least developed nations. enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention and whether products are imported or locally Evergreening Strategies in Pharma produced’. Its features involve maintaining standards, A number of strategies have been followed by the causing enforcement and dispute settlement in varied innovator companies to extend the term of patent, viz. areas of IP. It has ensured protection of IP of methods of treatment, mechanism of action, packaging, pharmaceutical companies’ thus indirectly enhancing derivatives, isomeric forms, delivery profiles, dosing patient compliance by providing access to essential regimen, dosing range, dosing route, combinations, medicines at cost effective price.3 The signatories to the screening methods, biological targets and field of use. TRIPS adhere to strict regulations wherein minimum These strategies involve skilled addition of patents to the standards are maintained in order to provide product product by the innovator companies that force the patents for pharmaceuticals and chemicals. This further generic manufacturer to maintain forbearance for all the increases growth of pharmaceutical industries, thus patents to expire and applying for marketing facilitating the birth of a wider range of inventions and authorization (as and when applicable), bearing the risks subsequently aid in providing affordable medicines for of litigation and associated penalties and delays.4 The different diseases and disorders. innovator companies in the name of ‘life-cycle Although TRIPS has provided stricter standards to management’ maximize revenues from their so called provide patents for pharmaceuticals and chemicals ‘evergreen’ products and choke generic competition at and facilitate growth of wider range of inventions, the outset of product life-cycles. Although the strategies there is still a dilemma which is faced by a number of followed by the innovator companies foray through pharmaceutical companies working in HIV/AIDS strictest legal framework, the irony is that still most of programmes in majority of developing and developed these companies represent misuse of pharmaceutical countries as they do not have adequate manufacturing patents and regulations governing authorization. capacity which results in compromised access to Evergreening strategies that have been usually medicines for treatment of HIV/AIDS. This lead to an followed by the pharmaceutical industries involve: uproar in the public which forced WTO member (a) redundant extensions and creation of ‘next generation countries to adopt a declaration in the Doha drugs’ which result in superfluous variation to a product ministerial meeting, ‘The World Trade Organization’s and then patenting it as a new application, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public (b) prescription to OTC switch, (c) exclusive Health of 2001’ that affirmed the flexibilities partnerships with cream of generic players in the market available under the TRIPS Agreement to member prior to patent expiry thus significantly enhancing the states seeking to protect public health. brand value and interim earning royalties on the product, Although the Doha Declaration supports important (d) defensive pricing strategies practice wherein the principles under the TRIPS Agreement still challenges innovator companies decrease the price of the product in are being faced with respect to the international trade line with the generic players for healthy competition and law regarding protection of public health. Developing (e) establishment of subsidiary units by respective and under-developed countries are facing acute pressure innovator companies in generic domain before the on access to export markets in well established advent of rival generic players.5 Strategies employed industries in developed countries and have to prioritize find a basis in a classic example on a patent obtained on trade over public health protections. This is loratadine (Claritin) by an innovator company, Schering. disadvantageous to the said developing and under- Schering applied for and obtained 46 months of patent developed nations which have to compromise public extension owing to regulatory review time and changes health over trade. Thus, one choice
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Enlarged" Concept of Novelty: Initial Study
    December 2, 2004 DRAFT “ENLARGED ” CONCEPT OF NOVELTY : INITIAL STUDY CON CERNING NOVELTY AND THE PRIOR ART EF FECT OF CERTAIN APPL ICATIONS UNDER DRAFT ARTICLE 8(2) OF THE SPLT prepared by the International Bureau I. SUMMARY 1. The present initial study is submitted upon request of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) at its tenth session, held in Geneva from May 10 to 14, 2004, in order to provide a basis for discussion concerning a possible new novelty concept applicable to th e prior art effect of unpublished earlier applications under Article 8(2) of the draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT). The study aims at providing broad background information and at facilitating further substantive discussion in the SCP, and thus addresses not only national and regional laws and practices regarding the prior art effect of earlier applications, but also the policy objectives underlying these different practices. 2. The divergences among national laws and practices in resp ect of the prior art effect of unpublished earlier applications seem to reflect different principles and objectives underlying the prevention of double patenting. Examining a number of national and regional laws and practices, it appears that those differ ent practices correspond mainly to one or more of the following three models: (i) Strict novelty: if a claimed invention is explicitly or inherently disclosed in an earlier application, the earlier application defeats the patentability of the claimed in vention; (ii) Broader novelty: even if the claimed invention is not fully disclosed (explicitly or inherently) in the earlier application, the earlier application defeats the patentability of the claimed invention if the differences between the two are minor (for example, a replacement with a well -known equivalent element); (iii) Novelty and inventive step (non-obviousness): the earlier application defeats the patentability of the claimed invention if the latter lacks either novelty or inventive step (non-obviousness) compared to the earlier application.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health and Intellectual Property Management: the Challenges on Access to Medicines
    Public Health and Intellectual Property management: the challenges on access to medicines Dr. Inthira Yamabhai 1 | Public health, innovation and intellectual property Overview Intellectual property (IP) and implications on access to medicine – Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) – TRIPS+ through trade agreements Sources of information 2 | Different forms of IP Trademark: name under which product is marketed Patent: compound, crystalline forms, process, method of use, etc Protection of undisclosed data: clinical test data Copyright: package insert Design protection: packaging 3 | Patents There is nothing such as a worldwide patent! WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty allows for worldwide filing, but applicant receives a bundle of national patents; same principle under European Patent Convention WTO TRIPS sets certain minimum standards: – Term: 20 years from filing data – Mandatory for all fields of technology – Criteria: novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability – Flexibilities: e.g. parallel importation and compulsory licensing 4 | One drug = one patent??? "…a key element of life cycle management strategies is to extent patent protection for as long as possible by filing secondary patents to keep generics off the market" (Burdon and Sloper 2003) Sofosbuvir: Expiry without patent term extension(s) • Broad compound patent (Markush) Market 2024 • WO2005003147A2 Authorization US: 2013/14 • Compound patent on prodrug • WO2008121634A2 2028 www.who.int/phi/impl ementation/ip_trade/ip • Crystalline forms _patent_landscapes/e
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Partes Re-Examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in The
    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Inter partes Re-examination: a Low Cost Alternative to Litigation in the US and Prosecution Strategies in View of the Historically Low Allowance Rate at the by USPTO Anthony C. Tridico, and Carlos M. Téllez Los Lunes de Patentes, Madrid, 30 November 2009 Disclaimer • These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the panelists, are not individualized legal advice, and do not reflect the views of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., and the panelists. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22 Outline • Re-exam as a low cost alternative to Litigation in the U.S. • Obviousness and KSR as major factors in rejection of applications • Strategies for dealing with KSR in various types of applications • General prosecution tips – If there is time – tips for avoiding inequitable conduct… 33 Monitoring and Detective Work • Time and money is spent monitoring your competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Confusing Patent Eligibility
    CONFUSING PATENT ELIGIBILITY DAVID 0. TAYLOR* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 158 I. CODIFYING PATENT ELIGIBILITY ....................... 164 A. The FirstPatent Statute ........................... 164 B. The Patent Statute Between 1793 and 1952................... 166 C. The Modern Patent Statute ................ ..... 170 D. Lessons About Eligibility Law ................... 174 II. UNRAVELING PATENT ELIGIBILITY. ........ ............. 178 A. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs............ 178 B. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l .......... .......... 184 III. UNDERLYING CONFUSION ........................... 186 A. The Requirements of Patentability.................................. 186 B. Claim Breadth............................ 188 1. The Supreme Court's Underlying Concerns............ 189 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address the Concerns with Claim Breadth .............. 191 3. The Supreme Court Wrongly Rejected Use of Existing Statutory Requirements to Address Claim Breadth ..................................... 197 4. Even if § 101 Was Needed to Exclude Patenting of Natural Laws and Phenomena, A Simple Statutory Interpretation Would Do So .................... 212 C. Claim Abstractness ........................... 221 1. Problems with the Supreme Court's Test................221 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address Abstractness, Yet the Supreme Court Has Not Even Addressed Them.............................. 223 IV. LACK OF ADMINISTRABILITY ....................... ....... 227 A. Whether a
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Life in the European Community: the Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 4 Volume IV Number 2 Volume IV Book 2 Article 1 1993 Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Janice McCoy, Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions, 4 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 501 (1993). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol4/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Patenting Life in the European Community: The Proposed Directive on the Legal Protection for Biotechnological Inventions Janice McCoy' INTRODUCTION Technology has once again overtaken the law. Ever since the United States Supreme Court concluded in 1980 that anything un- der the sun that was made by man could be patented,' and especial- ly since the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced in 1987 that it considered nonnaturally occurring non- human animals to be patentable subject matter,2 legislative bodies in both the United States and the European Economic Community ("EEC") have been debating to what extent living matter should be patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • Invention and Patent Policy (00015747-10).DOC
    Patent and Invention Policy The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Effective as of January 1, 2009 Updated April 22, 2013 Patent & Invention Policy I. Preamble The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is dedicated to education, research, and public service, including economic development in North Carolina. Inventions and discoveries sometimes arise in the course of research conducted by University faculty, students, and staff. The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina has determined that patenting and commercialization of these inventions and discoveries is consistent with the mission of the University. Service to the public is an integral part of the University's mission. Where possible, the University should enable inventions and discoveries resulting from its research to reach the public in a manner that will maximize their impact on society and, at the same time, provide adequate recognition and reward to inventors. This policy has been established to ensure that those inventions and discoveries in which the University has an interest will be utilized in a manner consistent with the public good through patent protection or other mechanisms as appropriate. In addition, the University is obligated under the Bayh-Dole Act and other statutes to be responsible stewards of inventions resulting from research funded with public money. The provisions of this policy are subject to any applicable laws, regulations or specific provisions of the grants or contracts which govern the rights in inventions or discoveries made in connection with sponsored research. Under the terms of certain contracts and agreements between the University and various agencies of government, private and public corporations and private interests, the University is or may be required to assign or license all rights to inventions or discoveries that arise in the course of work conducted under such agreements to the contracting party.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Rights and the Evergreening of Pharmaceuticals
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Boscheck, Ralf Article — Published Version Intellectual property rights and the evergreening of pharmaceuticals Intereconomics Suggested Citation: Boscheck, Ralf (2015) : Intellectual property rights and the evergreening of pharmaceuticals, Intereconomics, ISSN 1613-964X, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 50, Iss. 4, pp. 221-226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10272-015-0546-y This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/172664 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu DOI: 10.1007/s10272-015-0546-y Intellectual Property Ralf Boscheck Intellectual Property Rights and the Evergreening of Pharmaceuticals Escalating healthcare expenditures and the need to ensure access to affordable medicine in both emerging and emerged economies are fuelling calls to contain the so-called evergreening practices of drug producers around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • "Reasonably" Compensate Employee Invento Rs in Japan
    By Calvin GRIFFITH, MICHIRU Takahashi & Nobutaka KOMIyAMA bly" Compe ona nsat as e E "Re m o pl t o g ye n e i il In a v F e f n o t o s r l s l i a n f J t i a P p a e N h : T EMPLOYERS BEWARE The United States is generally considered a more litigious paying seven-figure sums in compensation for employee country than Japan, where customs traditionally favor a less inventions, having expected that the compensation provided confrontational approach to dispute resolution. But there is in the ordinary employment contract or internal employment one exception—employee invention lawsuits. A recent series regulations would be accepted by courts as reasonable. of lawsuits filed by aggrieved employee inventors against This stunning development in Japanese courts is based on their employer companies, demanding “reasonable remu- Japan’s unique employee invention system under Article neration” for the employees’ inventions, has brought atten- 35 of the Japan Patent Law, and foreign companies doing tion to this unique area of Japanese patent law—and raised business in Japan, especially those with R&D facilities there, concern in the business community. Japanese companies should be familiar with the provisions of Article 35 and the were shocked to find themselves facing the possibility of case law applying it. 14 orIgIn oF thE FUss—ArtIclE 35 AnD thE olyMPUs CasE be entitled to remuneration based on income from the pat- Article 35 of the Japan Patent law. Japan has a unique ents. Pursuant to those regulations, Olympus acquired a pat- employee invention system under Article 35 of the Patent ent on employee Tanaka’s invention.
    [Show full text]
  • Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination
    Patents and the Public Domain: Improving Patent Quality Upon Reexamination Prepared by Policy Intern Raeanne Young [email protected] May 2008 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................3 PATENTS AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN .....................................................................................................4 The Problem With Patent Quality ..................................................................................................4 Policy Rationale: Encouraging Innovation .......................................................................................4 PATENT REEXAMINATION ...................................................................................................................6 Ex parte and Inter partes .............................................................................................................6 OVERALL REEXAMINATION TRENDS ......................................................................................................8 Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data: July , 98 - December 3, 2007 ...............................................8 Inter Partes Reexamination Filing Data: November 29, 999 - December 3, 2007 .............................0 Comparison of Ex Parte and Inter Partes ......................................................................................0 PROMOTING FAIRNESS IN THE PATENT SYSTEM THROUGH REEXAMINATION .............................................2
    [Show full text]
  • European Patent Office
    European Patent Office Report from the IP5 expert round table on artificial intelligence Munich, 31 October 2018 Executive summary 1. This document does not reflect any policy statement of the IP5 Offices or a particular patent office but only represents the workshop discussions. 2. Artificial Intelligence (AI) concerns algorithms allowing computers to self-improve computational tasks, including methods such as machine learning. The concept of AI originated in the 1950s, but only the recent significant increases in computational power have made practical applications of AI possible. As a result, AI is one of the drivers and a key element in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the globalised economy, the rapid development of AI technologies suggests a series of specific challenges for patent law and practice. 3. The IP5 Offices account for 80% of the global patent market and share the responsibility to increase efficiencies and legal certainty in the patent system. From a strategic perspective the IP5 Co-operation enables the offices to jointly remain at the forefront of developments and explore the impact of AI on the patent system and operations. 4. In the June 2018 IP5 Heads of Office meeting, the IP5 Offices were requested to explore the impact of AI, promote common understanding of the pertinent issues, prepare further discussions and develop policy options for the future. In this context, IP5 experts met on 31 October 2018 at the EPO in Munich to discuss specific legal aspects relating to the patenting of AI. The topics of this round table may serve as a basis for potential further work on AI issues by the IP5 Offices.
    [Show full text]
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?
    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2))
    Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 2 Section 1 Novelty Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2)) Section 1 Novelty 1. Overview Patent Act Article 29(1) provides as the unpatentable cases (i) inventions that were publicly known, (ii) inventions that were publicly worked (iii) inventions that were described in a distributed publication or made available to the public through electric telecommunication lines in Japan or a foreign country prior to the filing of the patent application. The same paragraph provides that a patent shall not be granted for these publicly known (Note) inventions (inventions lacking novelty, hereinafter referred to as "prior art” in this chapter.). The patent system is provided to grant an exclusive right to the patentee in exchange for disclosure of the invention. Therefore, the invention which deserves the patent should be novel. This paragraph is provided to achieve such a purpose. This Section describes the determination of novelty for an invention of the patent applications to be examined (hereinafter referred to as "the present application" in this Section.) (Notes) The term "publicly known" generally falls under Article 29(1)(i), or under the 29(1)(i) to (iii), hereinafter the latter is applied. 2. Determination of Novelty Inventions subject to determination of novelty are claimed inventions. The examiner determines whether the claimed invention has novelty by comparing the claimed inventions and the prior art cited for determining novelty and an inventive step (the cited prior art) to identify the differences between them.
    [Show full text]