DOCSLIB.ORG

Science&Industry News

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science&Industry News Nº 11-12 | Volume 6 | 2007 | ISSN 1618-8276 | A 60711 | European Biotechnology Science&Industry News CENTRAL EUROPE Satraplatin misses endpoint; Germany to change stem cell rules INSIGHT EUROPEAN UNION Council of Europe to harmonise framework for genetic testing NORTHERN EUROPE Orexo expands; Pronova goes public for 73 million euros WESTERN EUROPE Devgen buys Monsanto Asia; French President bans GMO crops SOUTHERN EUROPE Cellerix to receive 250 million euros for Phase III stem cell product EASTERN EUROPE Hungarian consortium gets funds for screening of selective MMP inhibitors SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY New MS approach: demyelination reversed; DNA dictates allergenicity 1st Berlin Conference on IP in Life Sciences Smart Clinical Trials 15 February 2008, 9:30 am, British Embassy Berlin, Germany Key Note Lecture Prof. Dr. Reinhard Kurth, President, Robert Koch Institute First in Man – Preparation and Design of Clinical Trials Dr. Liz Allen, Director of Scientific Affairs, Quintiles Ltd. Patenting in the Pharmaceutical Field: Dr. Ute Kilger, Patent Attorney, Vossius & Partner First and Second Medical Use for Biologicals Covering Liability Issues in Clinical Trials Dr. Jan Dirk Heerma, Partner, SJ Berwin LLP Introducing the UK Clinical Research Network - Prof. Dr. Richard S. Kaplan, Associate Director, Clinical Trials with the UK National Health System UK Clinical Research Network Study Design and IP – Important Factors Dr. Peter Hug, Global Head of Pharma Partnering, for Successful Licensing F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (enquired) Prolonging IP’s Life Span – Data Protection SPCs Dr. Christian Kilger, Patent Attorney, Vossius & Partner and the Law of Pedriatic Use Efficient Clinical Trials – Lessons learned Dr. Wolfgang Söhngen, CEO, Paion AG (enquired) Closing Remarks Dr. Hans-Rainer Jaenichen, Partner, Vossius & Partner Please register at www.biocom.de/events or mail to [email protected]. 20% Earlybird discount until Dec. 31st, 2007! Sponsors: Media Partner: BIOCOM Projektmanagement GmbH | Brunnenstraße 128 | 13355 Berlin | Germany www.biocom.de | [email protected] | Tel. +49 (0)30 264921-54 | Fax +49 (0)30 264921-66 42 Euro|Biotech|News Nº 11-12 | Volume 6 | 2007 PERSPECTIVES IP since human embryonic stem cells were comprised by the patent. It would have been much simpler if, upon realisation of the mistake, the patent holder could have New patent law – had the option of repairing his deficient patent. However, not only were the patent holder’s hands tied - there was no way the Patent Office could correct the mistake ei- the EPC 2000 ther. The resulting spectacular opposition proceedings ended up being used by polit- ical groups to discuss the question of stem Dr. Christian Kilger & Dr. Ute Kilger, Patent Attorneys Vossius & Partner, Berlin cell research. In future, the patent holder would have the opportunity to limit pro- ceedings by introducing the word “non- The European Patent Convention (EPC) 2000 will come into force on human”, thus limiting his own claim. 13 December, 2007. When the London Agreement also goes into force at the beginning of next year, many changes will take place in European Patentability Patent Law. What this means for patent applicants will be discussed in this article. The present “collection of laws/statutes”, the so-called European EPC 2000 also strengthens protection for Patent Convention (EPC) including Articles and Rules, supplemented by medical indications, namely by the intro- jurisdiction, was heavily revised at a diplomatic conference in November of duction of purpose-limited product pro- 2000. The revised EPC that is coming into force at the beginning of Decem- tection for medical indications. ber 2007 has so far been ratified by 24 member states. States which did Let us be clear: an absolute protection not ratify the new EPC – and as a result are no longer members of the EPC of products in medicinal use will, of – include France, Italy and Germany. There is no reason to assume that this course, continue to exist. In other words, will not change. The object of the revision was to increase the efficiency, if a completely new substance is found flexibility and user-friendliness of European patent systems, as well as to which, as a medicinal product, is suita- encourage deregulation and adjustment to existing treaties such as TRIPS ble against disease X, then said substance and PLT 2000. per se can be protected for any use, in- cluding non-medicinal use. Purpose-lim- ited product protection for medicinal in- The EPC 2000 represents the introduc- alleged infringer has therefore been given dications will be available in addition to tion of a central limitation and revocation greater power. In Germany, the key phrase absolute product protection. An exam- procedure. The patent holder is given the is “state-of-the-art prejudicial to novelty”. ple: let’s assume that substance X was option to limit or withdraw his/her own In the case of infringement, the alleged in- known to be an effective medicinal prod- patent. What would be the point in that? fringer will file a request for suspension uct against disease X. Later, the producer Here an example: a patent holder wants to of proceedings with the Regional Court, discovers that this substance is also suit- sue a competitor for patent infringement. and in the nullity proceedings before the able as a medicinal product against dis- Recently, however, he searched the state- Federal Patent Court, he will attack the ease Y. Up until now, because therapeu- of-the-art in his field and discovered that patent’s novelty. Thus, ideally, the plain- tic methods were excluded from patent- his patent claim is not new over its entire tiff would like a patent “without deficien- ability, only the following claim could scope. In order to own a legally valid pat- cies”. With the EPC 2000, the patent owner be granted: “Use of substance X for the ent, he would have to limit his patent claim is able to “repair” his patent. Another ex- production of a medicinal product for the to subject matter that is new and not ob- ample is the “notorious” Edinburgh Pat- therapeutic use against disease Y”. When vious over the state-of-the-art. One might ent comprising the claim “animal trans- defending said claim against a third par- say now that in the nullity suit that could genic stem cells including embryonic stem ty in court who, despite a standing patent be expected from such a scenario, the pat- cells”. There was a heated discussion sur- on this medicinal product for the thera- ent may be limited as well. The problem in rounding the question of whether the Eng- py of disease Y, was selling same, pat- this case is that, if the patent holder sues lish term “animal stem cells” also includes ent holders have had serious problems the alleged infringer without limitation, human stem cells, and therefore also hu- in some European countries – includ- he is actually strengthening the position man embryonic stem cells and their mod- ing France. Now with the EPC 2000, the of the alleged infringer, as the reply is ification or use. The latter should not be patent holder is granted protection for usually in the form of a nullity suit to de- patentable. Let’s assume that by granting “substance X for the treatment of disease stroy the patent of the adverse party. The the patent, the examiner made a mistake, Y”. It is to be expected that clear prod- Nº 11-12 | Volume 6 | 2007 Euro|Biotech|News 43 PERSPECTIVES very high costs. In March 2007, Malta be- came the 32nd member state of the Euro- pean Patent Convention. If protection were sought for all thirty-two European coun- tries, the patent would have to be trans- lated into all of these national languages. With average costs amounting to a3,000 for a patent application of average size, 20 countries would mean translation costs of a60,000. The London Agreement, a con- vention based on the free consent of the member states, eases the translation re- quirements considerably. The countries signing the Agreement will no longer de- mand a translation of the complete Euro- pean patent. Only claims will have to be translated into the national languages, while translation of the description will European Patent Office in Munich no longer be necessary. This will reduce translation costs considerably. Despite the uct claims like these are defended more It will also be possible, one year after the London Agreement having been decid- easily and will be accepted in all Euro- filing of the initial application, for exam- ed upon in 1999 and amended in 2000, it pean countries. ple, in Germany or in Europe, to file a is not yet in force. To date, the following patent application effective throughout states have signed the Agreement: Germa- Further processing the entire world while claiming the ear- ny, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Swit- lier initial priority date. Up to now, this zerland, Iceland, Latvia, the Principality If time limits are exceeded, an applica- was no longer possible if you had missed of Liechtenstein, Monaco and Slovenia. tion may be “lost“. In principal, reviv- the time limit the first time around. Pri- The parliaments of Sweden and Denmark al is possible by means of two methods: ority date was the most fatal of all time have also already ratified the Agreement. further processing and re-establishment. limits. Now, according to the new Eu- Thus, the London Agreement will proba- Further processing of a patent is rela- ropean Patent Convention 2000, at least bly come into effect before long in twelve tively uncomplicated; the omitted act is re-establishment (cf. above) is possible of the thirty-two countries of the Europe- completed, a small fee is paid, and a let- within a term of two months.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement
    Feature European changes The European Patent Convention and the London Agreement EPC 2000 – why change? By Pierre-André Dubois and Shannon The EPC 1973 came into force in 1977 and Yavorsky, Kirkland & Ellis International LLP revolutionised patent practice. However, in the last 30 years, the patent landscape The European Patent Convention (EPC 2000) changed significantly and it became apparent came into force on 13th December 2007, that there was a real need to overhaul the introducing sweeping changes to the dated legislation. First, the Agreement on European patent system. The new Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual convention governs the granting of European Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Patent Law patents by the European Patent Office (EPO) Treaty (PLT) came into force, and it was and applies throughout the 34 contracting questionable whether the EPC 1973 was in states of the European Patent Organisation line with the provisions of each of these (ie, the 27 EU Member States as well as agreements. As one example, the EPC 2000 Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, clarifies that, in accordance with TRIPs, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The original patents can now be granted in all fields of convention (EPC 1973), which dates back to technology as long as they are new, 1973, was outdated due to a number of comprise an inventive step and are developments in international law and the susceptible of industrial application. Second, need to improve the procedure before the the EPC 1973 was difficult to amend and, in EPO. While the new convention does not the face of fast-changing technology and overhaul substantive patent law (ie, what European legislation, required greater is patentable and what is not), it does legislative flexibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Guidelines Q238 Second Medical Use and Other Second
    Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Sarah MATHESON and John OSHA, Deputy Reporters General Anne Marie VERSCHUR, Sara ULFSDOTTER and Kazuhiko YOSHIDA Assistants to the Reporter General Q238 Second medical use and other second indication claims Introduction 1) This question seeks to determine the type, scope and enforcement of patent protection for new uses of known chemical compounds when a known substance is found to have a new therapeutic use. For convenience, these guidelines will refer to such use as 'second medical use'. Various types of second medical use are described below. 2) The granting of patent protection for second medical uses potentially provides an important incentive for the identification and development of solutions for unmet medical needs. Second medical use patents can also be a major tool of the originator pharmaceutical industry as part of patent lifecycle management. However, the additional research and development work is time- consuming and expensive. Patent protection is important, but sufficient incentive to encourage research into second medical uses lies in the potential availability of enforceable patent rights of effective scope. 3) Currently, whether patent protection for second medical uses is permitted at all, and if so, the form of permissible claims, varies from country to country. The ability to enforce permissible claims, and the scope of protection afforded, also varies between jurisdictions. Lack of harmonisation impacts both originator and generic pharmaceutical companies by creating uncertainty both for patent holders and assumed infringers. 4) The granting of patent protection for second medical uses gives rise to competing positive and negative impacts on the provision of effective medicines to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent-Related Barriers to Market Entry for Generic Medicines in the European Union
    atents play an important role in modern society. In order to encourage the creation, dissemination and efficient P exploitation of technology, patents provide inventors Patent-related Barriers with a limited term legal monopoly on their invention. Generic medicines play an equally important role in promoting to Market Entry for pharmaceutical innovation and ensuring the affordability and sustainability of European healthcare systems. In this regard, Generic Medicines in immediate market access of generic medicines after patent expiry is of crucial interest to society, and any hurdle to this the European Union access should be eliminated. However, a number of developments point to a strategic use of patents—of sometimes questionable quality—which is directed more toward preventing others from innovating and competing, A Review of Weaknesses in the Current than toward creating truly innovative products. When misused European Patent System and their Impact in this manner, patents can present a barrier to entry onto the on the Market Access of Generic Medicines generic medicines market. This report identifies some of the hurdles that generic medicines companies face in this regard in the European Union. Editor Kristof Roox | Attorney at the Brussels Bar | Belgium European Patent Office Headquarters | Munich, Germany EUROPEAN GENERIC MEDICINES ASSOCIATION EUROPEAN GENERIC Rue d’Arlon 50 B-1000 Brussels | Belgium MEDICINES ASSOCIATION Tel: +32 (0) 2 736 84 11 | Fax: +32 (0) 2 736 74 38 www.egagenerics.com | [email protected] Layout & Design:
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007
    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Guidelines for Examination General Part Amended in December, 2007 CONTENTS 1. Preliminary remarks 2. Explanatory notes 2.1 Overview 2.2 Abbreviations 3. General remarks 4. Work at the EPO 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 6. Contracting States to the EPC 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 1 1. Preliminary remarks In accordance with Art. 10(2)(a) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) had adopted, effective as at 1 June 1978, the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. These Guidelines have been and will be updated at regular intervals to take account of developments in European patent law and practice. Amended or new text (as compared to the latest previous version only) is indicated by a vertical line in the right-hand margin. Mere deletions are indicated by two horizontal lines in the right-hand margin. Usually, updates only involve amendments to specific sentences or passages on individual pages, in order to bring at least part of the text more closely into line with patent law and EPO practice as these continue to evolve. It follows that no update can ever claim to be complete. Any indication from readers drawing the attention to errors as well as suggestions for improvement are highly appreciated and may be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are also published by the EPO in an electronic, searchable form on the Internet via the EPO website: http://www.epo.org 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications Relating to Medical Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office
    Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relating to Medical Inventions in the Intellectual Property Office April 2016 © Crown copyright 2016 Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office April 2016 3 Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................paragraphs 1-5 Basic principles .............................................................................................................paragraphs 6-10 Methods of treatment or diagnosis ...........................................................................paragraphs 11-15 Therapy Definition of “therapy” ....................................................................................................paragraphs 16-17 Therapeutic methods: form of claims ............................................................................paragraphs 18-19 Guidelines for determining whether a method is “treatment by therapy” .....................paragraphs 20-22 Claims to both therapeutic and non-therapeutic methods ...........................................paragraphs 23-28 Therapeutic and non-therapeutic methods: specific examples i) Cosmetic treatments ................................................................................................. paragraph 29 ii) Removal of parasites .........................................................................................paragraphs 30-31 iii) Oral care .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------ ------SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, V
    No. 15-1182 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF OF PROFESSOR TIMO MINSSEN AND ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ WITH 10 EUROPEAN AND AUSTRALIAN LAW PROFESSORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANDREW J. DHUEY Counsel of Record 456 Boynton Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 (510) 528-8200 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae TIMO MINSSEN Professor of Biotechnology Law (fr. 1 May 2016) FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN Studiestraede 6 DK-1455 Copenhagen K, Denmark ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ Researcher FACULTY OF LAW LUND UNIVERSITY Lilla Gråbrödersgatan 4 222 22 Lund, Sweden ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 3 I. The European legal framework for patent eligibility .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EPC 2000 the Revised European Patent Convention + the London Agreement
    EPC 2000 The Revised European Patent Convention + The London Agreement 2nd edition Königstraße 70 Am Literaturhaus 90402 Nürnberg Telefon: (0911) 89138-0 Telefax: (0911) 89138-29 Am Stein 12 D-97080 Würzburg Telefon: (0931) 286410 Telefax: (0931) 282597 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ip-goetz.eu 1 What is the EPC? A multilateral treaty (34 contracting states) for a centralised patent grant procedure before a single patent office (EPO). To modernize the European patent system and adapt it to TRIPS (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) and PLT (Patent Law Treaty), the revised EPC 2000 has entered into force on 12/13/2007. 2 What is the London Agreement? A multilateral sub-treaty (14 contracting states) to the EPC for the purpose to save translation costs (see at the end). 3 EPC 2000: Highlights at first glance (I) Changes in substantive patent law ➔ inventions in „all fields of technology“ (adaptation to TRIPS) no substantial change of current practise ➔ use-limited product protection for a second or further medical use of a kown substance (see example below) ➔ novelty-destroying effect of subsequently published EP application having an earlier priority date independent of country designation (see examples below) ➔ strengthening of extent of protection (see below) 4 EPC 2000: Highlights at first glance (II) Procedural „innovations“: ➔ Drastically decreasing requirements for the filing date (adaptation to PLT – see below) ➔ Re-establishment of rights and corrections in respect of priority claim ➔ Further processing of an application as standard legal remedy in respect of observing time limits ➔ Request by patent owner for centralised limitation or revocation of the EP patent ➔ Introduction of a third instance (Enlarged Board of Appeal) for the case of fundamental procedural defects in appeal proceedings (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is the European Patent Office Supporting Innovation in Europe?
    How is the European Patent Office supporting innovation in Europe? Enrique Molina Galan BIO2009, 19 May 2009 Director Biotechnology 19-06-2009 European Patent Organisation Member states: • A European intergovernmental Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia institution, but • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • • not an EU institution Germany • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania •Self-financing, i.e. revenue •Luxembourg • Former Yugoslav from fees covers operating Republic of Macedonia • Malta • and capital expenditure Monaco • Netherlands • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • 35 member states • Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom • a market of over 500 M citizens 01.07.09: San Marino Extension agreements: • Single procedure & language Albania • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Serbia A bit of History § 1973 Diplomatic conference setting up EPC § 1977 EPC enters into force § 1978 EPO starts operating and receives first European applications § 2000 Diplomatic conference performs the first comprehensive overhaul of EPC; EPC 2000 § 2007 EPC 2000 enters into force Structure of the European Patent Organisation European Patent Organisation European Patent Office Administrative Council The executive body The legislative body § responsible for examining § made up of delegates European patent from the member states applications § supervises the activities of the Office § has a specific legislative function Structure of the European Patent
    [Show full text]
  • Grounds for Invalidity
    Grounds for invalidity Essentials The effect of licences under patents Grounds for Proceedings for Decisions and ADR invalidity invalidity judgments Jursidiction and procedure Fundamentals of Plaintiff/ Construction of patent Defences and OUT OF COURT IN COURT infringement claimant specifications remedies UPC Agreement Biological inventions Burden of proof Liability National approaches What is not patentable According to Article 138(1)(a) European Patent Convention (EPC) a Article 138(1)(a) EPC European patent can be revoked if the claimed invention is not patentable Subject to Article 139, a European patent may be revoked with effect for a under Articles 52-57 EPC. These articles set out the basic requirements for Contracting State only on the grounds that: patentable inventions. (a) the subject-matter of the European patent is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57… An “invention susceptible of industrial application” and the definitions Article 52(1) EPC states that European of “novelty” and “inventive step” are found in Articles 52 to 57 EPC (see patents will be granted for any inventions, below). in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. Non-patentable subject-matter – Article 52(2) EPC The EPC does not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes an invention. Instead, Article 52(2) EPC contains a non-exhaustive list of Article 52(2) EPC subject-matter that be regarded as an invention. Article 52(3) EPC The following in particular shall
    [Show full text]
  • The Life Cycle of a European Patent Application
    The life cycle of a European patent application Directorate Practice and Procedure_Formalities date of review: Munich and The Hague 20 January 2010 • Part 1: Requirements for filing of a European patent application • Part 2: Overview of the examination procedure • Part 3: Means of redress throughout the life of the patent application Part 1: Requirements for filing a European patent application 1. Filing of a European Patent Application 2. Date of Filing 3. Formal requirements 4. Inventor 5. Late filing of parts of description and/or drawings 6. Claims 7. Language 8. Priority 9. Fees 10. Accelerated search 11. Search report/Publication of application Part 1: Requirements for filing Filing a European patent application • Where EPO (Munich, The Hague, Berlin) (Art. 75 (1) a) EPC) National offices (Art. 75 (1) b) and 77 EPC) • How Post Fax Online • Who Any natural or legal person (Art. 58 EPC) Part 1: Requirements for filing Date of filing Requirements for the accordance of a date of filing (R. 40 EPC): - Indication that a European patent is sought - Information identifying the applicant - A description or reference to a previously filed application A reference to a previously filed application shall state the - Filing date - Number of that application - Office with which it was filed Such reference shall indicate that it replaces the description and any drawings Part 1: Requirements for filing EPO Form 1001 - Reference to previously filed application Part 1: Requirements for filing Formal requirements If the European patent application
    [Show full text]
  • Study on the Quality of the Patent System in Europe
    Ref. Ares(2012)1471488 - 11/12/2012 Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT/2009/11/D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European Union 2009/S 147-214675 of 04/08/2009 March 2011 Authors: Giuseppe Scellato* (Coordinator) Mario Calderini* Federico Caviggioli* Chiara Franzoni* Elisa Ughetto* Evisa Kica1 Victor Rodriguez1 * Politecnico di Torino, DISPEA, IP Finance Institute, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy. 1 Twente University, School of Management and Governance, Department of Legal and Economic Governance Studies, Institute for Governance Studies, Centre for European Studies, P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. DG MARKT PATQUAL Disclaims: This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. 2 DG MARKT PATQUAL Definitions and abbreviations: ARIPO African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation DKPTO Danish Patent and Trademark Office DPMA German Patent and Trademark Office ECLA European Patent Classification EESR Extended European Search Report EPC European Patent Convention EPN European Patent Network EPO European Patent Office EQMS European Quality Management System EQS European Quality System ESOP European Search Opinion EU European Union HPO Hungarian Patent Office INPI Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property IPC International Patent Classification IPEA International Preliminary Examining Authority ISA International Search Authority ISO International
    [Show full text]
  • EPO Online Filing Basic Tutorials
    EPO Online Filing Basic Tutorials Version 5.00 Copyright© European Patent Office All rights reserved Last Update: 29/04/2013 Document Version: OLF5_TutorialBasic_EN_100407.doc LT 0560/10-101380045 Online Filing 5.00 - Basic Tutorials Table of contents 1 Getting started 3 2 EP(1001E2K) Overview 6 2.1 EP(1001E2K) Tutorial scenario.......................................................................................................7 2.2 EP(1001E2K) Request....................................................................................................................8 2.3 EP(1001E2K) Request: Additional practice....................................................................................12 2.4 EP(1001E2K) Names ...................................................................................................................17 2.5 EP(1001E2K) States.....................................................................................................................21 2.6 EP(1001E2K) Priority....................................................................................................................23 2.7 EP(1001E2K) Biological Material...................................................................................................25 2.8 EP(1001E2K) Documents.............................................................................................................26 2.9 EP(1001E2K) Fee Payment..........................................................................................................32 2.10 EP(1001E2K) Annotations
    [Show full text]