Maximizing Patent Prosecution Opportunities in Europe: Tactics for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Maximizing Patent Prosecution Opportunities in Europe: Tactics for Counsel When Drafting U.S.-Origin Applications

Navigating Differing USPTO and EPO Legal Standards While Maintaining U.S. Patent Strategy

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2014

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Rebecca M. McNeill, VIVICAR Law, PLLC, Boston Jens Viktor Nørgaard, Partner, Head of Biotechnology & Plant Sciences, HØIBERG, Denmark

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

• f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-888-601-3873 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the word balloon button to send

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Maximizing Patent Prosecution Opportunities in Europe: Tactics for Counsel When Drafting US-Origin Applications

Jens Viktor Nørgaard, HØIBERG A/S Rebecca McNeill, VIVICAR Law, PLLC January 23, 2014

4

Outline

• EPC/EU Scope
• EPO’s Literal Approach to Documents
• Amendments
• Priority
• Novelty
• Inventive Step
• Enablement/Sufficiency of Disclosure
• Unity
• Divisionals
• Unified Patent

5

EPO Approach to Reading Documents

Europe

6

7

European Patent Convention (EPC)

8

European Union (EU)

EU vs EPO

• European Patent Office (EPO)

– 38 states may be designated in a European Patent Application – 2 states are extension states – Total population of ~600 million (USA: ~316 million) – GDP(EPC) ≈ 20 billion USD (USA: ~15.7 billion USD)

• European Union (EU)

– 28 states – All 28 EU member states can be designated in a European Patent application – Total population of ~500 million (USA: ~316 million) – GDP (EU) ≈ 16.417 billion USD (USA: ~15.7 billion USD)

9

10

European Patent with Unitary effect

• AKA the EU patent or Unitary

Patent

• At present 25 countries (green)

are participants: 27 EU countries minus Italy and Spain.

• Spain, Croatia (red) will not join

Patent or Court

• Italy (yellow) will join Unified

Court

• Poland (pink) may in time join

Patent

• Non EU countries (blue) are not

participants

EPO Approach to Reading Documents

European Reading Literal Approach to Documents

11

12

When reading prior art Amendments compared to the application as filed When you compare to the priority document Directly and unambiguously derivable

13

An interval is an interval. A genus is a genus. Combinations must be explicitly made No cherry picking

14

Enablement

Non-enabled prior art does not anticipate Same standard for applications and prior art

15

Motivation to Combine

Documents can only be combined if there is a motivation Required for combinations within a document

Amendments in the EPO

Amendments

16

Amendments

• No statutory differences between EPC and 35

U.S.C.

– US: No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention (35 USC 132 (a)). – EPO: A European patent application or a European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed (Art 123(2) EPC).

17

Amendments vs. Written Description

• 35 U.S.C. §112

– (a) In General.— The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, – Often used as a basis for rejecting “new matter.”

18

Amendments

• Difference in practice:

– Disclosure test (“directly and unambiguously derivable”). The disclosure must be exactly the same. Almost verbatim basis. – The EPO does not accept arbitrary selections from two or more lists (no cherry picking; no selection invention within application) – No combinations of features from different embodiments/aspects – Selecting a preferred embodiment from a list is not considered a selection – Combinations within multiple dependent claims are always disclosed (easy fix)! 19

Amendments

• Typical US challenges

– Different features are not prioritized or claimed separately

• results in selection from more than one list (can also

give inventive step challenges)

– US application with several independent claims

• need to be combined into one independent EP claim

20

Amendments

• Do’s

– Disclose all embodiments in the specification (not just in the examples). – Disclose any species, sub-genus, intervals in the description. – Add the technical effect. – If possible, describe preferred embodiments as preferred – Alternatively, put preferred embodiments in separate dependent claims – Speculative embodiments – consider leaving them out – Describe combinations of features – Add one generic independent encompassing all US-type independent claims – Make all dependent claims multiple dependent. – PS: do this already in the priority document

• Don’ts

– Don’t make laundry lists – Don’t put fall back positions only in the examples – Don’t keep the number of claims low

21

Priority

Priority

22

Priority – Formal Right

• Article 87 EPC

(1) Any person who has duly filed, in or for (a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or (b) any Member of the World Trade Organization, an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing a European patent application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.

– The right to priority must exist at the date of filing the regular (PCT or EP) application – Transfer of the right to priority must be done in writing during the priority year 23

Priority – Formal Right

• Successor in title
• Inventors are applicants for many US

provisionals

• Assignees are applicants for EURO-PCT/EP

applications

• An employer does not automatically have the right

to claim priority from an inventor’s US application

24

Priority – Formal Right

• Evidence of transfer of right to priority
• Guidelines for examination in the EPO:

– The transfer of the application (or of the priority right as such) must have taken place before the filing date

• f the later European application and must be a

transfer valid under the relevant national provisions. Proof of this transfer can be filed later. (Guidelines A- III 6.1) (T 19/87 and T 1008/96) – US-assignment signed during priority year should be valid

25

Priority – Formal Right

– Neither "Employee Confidentiality and Inventions Agreement" nor a "Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement” constitute an assignment (J 12/00) – Invention Disclosure Form signed by inventor?

26

Priority – Practice tips

• Do’s

– File US provisionals in the name of the assignee (easy fix) – Assign rights to a US-provisional to the applicant (assignee) during the priority year.

27

Substantive Right to Priority

• Same test as for amendments (”directly and

unambiguously derivable”)

• Effective date of a claim – the filing/priority date on

which the subject-matter of a claim is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application documents

• Any one claim may claim different priorities

28

Practice Tips

• Caution

– Be cautious in deleting anything from a priority document. – If you discover errors, take care in correcting/deleting them.

• Do’s

– Ensure all claims are adequately supported in priority document – Include fallback positions in priority document – File a complete application from the beginning – Update application by adding new text – If there is an error, add the correction cautiously

29

Threats - Priority

• Priority: US provisional containing scientists’ manuscript (“cover-

sheet provisional”)

• Manuscript published during priority year
• PCT application is filed with complete specification and claims.
• Effective date of claims?
• Priority date or PCT date
• Manuscript citable as prior art for claims not ”directly and

unambiguously derivable” from priority document.

30

Priority - Opportunities

• Black box prior art (citability before publication)
• Applications are citable for purposes of novelty

from their filing/priority date (equivalent to §102 (e) prior art)

• Applications with more details generate stronger

prior art

31

Novelty

Novelty

32

Novelty

• Absolute novelty (including in view of

inventors’ own publications)

• In Europe there is NO GRACE PERIOD
• Only significant exception used is in the case of

evident abuse

• non-prejudicial disclosures (6 mo. grace period)

33

Novelty – Selection Inventions

• Selection from discrete embodiments:

– A selection is novel if the combination is made from two or more lists of some length and if the selection results in a new technical teaching, i.e. not an arbitrary selection.

• Selection from interval:

– A selection is novel if:

– It is narrow – It is sufficiently far removed from specific numbers (e.g. ‘end points’) – The narrow interval results in a new technical teaching.

34

Selection Invention – Examples

• 1. Prior art is a multi-gene application describing 5000 genes and all

imaginable diseases:

• Claim directed to use of one gene/protein for treatment of one specific

disorder supported by data is a novel selection

• 2. Prior art describes composition with 7 different constituents with broad

intervals:

• Claim describes composition with same 7 constituents with narrower

intervals and new technical effect (multiple selection invention). Data must demonstrate existence of technical effect within the claimed area and not outside.

• 3. Prior art describes Markush formula with several possible substituents in

different positions:

• Claim describes one compound or a narrow Markush formula supported

by functional data.

35

Novelty – Threats and Opportunities

• Threats

– Bad priority applications will haunt you – Publication before priority date – Publication during priority year

• Opportunities

– Draft applications directed to selection inventions – Draft applications with multiple lines of defense to prevent competitors from making selections within your invention – Draft applications with many details to generate stronger prior art

36

Inventive step

Inventive Step

37

Inventive Step

• Problem - Solution approach
• 1. Determine the closest prior art (CPA, aka the primary

reference)

– Same purpose – i.e., sets out to solve the same technical problem – Most features in common – Same or neighboring technical field

• 2. Establish the differences between CPA and the claim
• 3. Establish the objective technical problem solved in view of

the CPA

38

Inventive Step

• Problem - Solution approach (continued)
• 4. Determine whether the solution to the problem is obvious

– There must be a reason to modify the prior art (would not could) – Can be based on combination of 2-(3) documents (or common general knowledge)

• 5. Support for an inventive step

– Unexpected results – Going against a prejudice – Secondary indicia: Long felt need, commercial success, failure of

• thers

39

Enablement

Enablement/Sufficiency of Disclosure

40

Enablement / Sufficiency of Disclosure

• There is Sufficiency of Disclosure (Art 83 EPC)

if the specification discloses at least one way

• f practicing the invention.
• Burden of evidence for sufficiency is lower

than for US enablement

– In particular with regard to use/method of treatment claims – In vitro data are often accepted as sufficient – Later filed evidence is taken into consideration – Data on one species may support a broad genus

41

Support for Broad Claims

• Broad claims may be supported by a few examples if it is plausible that the invention works

throughout the scope of the claims

• Examples:

– EPO accepts claims with 70% sequence identity and a functional limitation on the basis of one sequence (no structure/function relationship required) – EPO does not require election of species for Markush claims – First medical use claims are granted based on one enabled indication – EPO accepts second medical use directed to treatment of groups of indications

42

43

• 2. Isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a

nucleotide sequence encoding an alcohol dehydrogenase having an amino acid sequence with at least 70% amino acid sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 2.

Broad Claims

• Opportunities
• Describe and claim the broad genuses

– Include lower % identity in disclosure than you would if pursuing only the US

• Describe and claim sub-genuses
• Generalize your “method of treatment claims”

44

Patentable Subject Matter

Patentable Subject Matter

45

First Medical Use

• A compound for use in medical treatment is

patentable in Europe

• The first inventor of a medical use of a

compound is entitled to a claim covering any medical use

– Claim format: Compound X for use as a medicament

46

Second Medical Use

• Novelty for second (or further) medical use(s) of a known medicament may be obtained

through for example: – A new disease or group of diseases – A new group of individuals to be treated – A new dosage – A new formulation – A new treatment regimen

• Enlarged Board of Appeal has laid out the basis for patentability of second medical treatment

in several decisions

• Claim format:

– Compound X for use in the treatment of disease Y. – Use of compound X for preparation of a medicament for the treatment of disease Y.

47

Dosage Claims – Uncertainty?

• Recent European dosage claim patent was

validated in DE, FR, GB

• Came to three different conclusions

– Problem: Harmonized application process but non-harmonized litigation – Solution: Harmonization via Unified Patent Court

48

Androgenic Alopecia

49 Claim 1 Use of finasteride for the preparation of a medicament for oral administration useful for the treatment of androgenic alopecia in a person, wherein the dosage amount is about 0.05 to 1.0 mg. Prior art Use of finasteride to treat hyperandrogenic conditions by oral or topical administration; Use of finasteride by topical administration for treating androgenic alopecia which is also a hyperandrogenic condition.

Dosage Regimen

50 Region/Country Result EPO G2/08 Novelty and inventive step United Kingdom Novelty and inventive step Germany Invalid - lack of novelty Part of the patent claims specifying the dosage related to the administration and were disregarded in the assessment of novelty France Non patentable Therapeutic method

Diagnostic Use

• Diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal

body are not patentable

• Diagnostic methods practiced on a sample are

patentable

• Also relevant to consider any (non-statutory) surgical

step involved in the diagnosis

• Non-statutory surgical steps are those that present a

substantial health risk for the subject and require the intervention of a physician

51

Products of Nature/Natural Processes

• Isolated DNA and natural processes are still

patentable in Europe

– Isolated DNA, protein, antibodies, etc. – Personalized medicine processes, such as dosing processes

• Continue to prepare applications reciting this

subject matter in disclosure

– consider claims-like multiple dependent embodiments to support various combinations

52

Patentable Subject Matter Practice Tips

• Do’s

– Claim diagnostic methods! – Claim the diagnostic method separately from any surgical step. – Claim broad medical uses

• Groups of indications

– Disclose and Claim Myriad/Prometheus Type Subject Matter

• Don’ts

– Do not include surgical steps in claims directed to treatment or diagnosis

53

Unity of Invention and Divisionals

54

Restriction/Unity

55 Compound Species Claim Types A B C D Compounds Method of manufacture Method of treatment Formulation Screening assay Primary US Division EPO Division

Unity

– Definition

• Same or corresponding technical features which together provide an

inventive contribution over the state of the art (”special technical features”)

– Examples of special technical features:

• Common structure
• Same essential structural element (intermediate and final products)
• A significant structural element (Markush claims)
• Common function
• Common manufacturing steps

– A priori same invention:

• Apparatus and product made by apparatus
• Method of manufacturing, product, and method of use

56

Unity

• Opportunities

– No division among: protein, DNA, cell, vector, antibody, method of expressing, medical use, screening assays – Different scope for different claim categories possible

– Narrow product claim – Broad use-claim – Broad manufacturing claim

57

Unity

• Objections raised at search stage
• No possibility to amend claims to overcome prior art to provide a

special technical feature

• Left at the mercy of the examiner - often they divide claims more or

less arbitrarily into different inventions

• Potentially very expensive to pay search fees for all inventions
• Protests rarely successful (not possible at EP-stage)
• Not possible to claim unsearched subject matter at a later stage of

prosecution

58

Unity – Threats and Opportunities

• Do’s

– Place the most important invention first in the claims – Claim the more narrow genuses and sub-genuses in the next claims – Leave the list of species to later claims – Find the common inventive concept – Combine alternatives in one independent claim

• Don’ts

– Draft several independent claims in the same category (may provoke a unity objection)

59

Divisionals

• Previously divisional applications were due on any

pending application within 24 months from the first communication under Art 94(3) EPC (Office Action) or R 71(3) EPC (Notice of Allowance)

• In October 2013, the EPO Administrative Council

amended these provisions.

• As of April 1, 2014, divisional applications may be filed

so long as the parent application is pending.

• Eliminates the 24-month window.

60

Unified Patent Court

Unified Patent Court

61

Participating countries

62

”Enhanced cooperation” Italy and Spain have announced that they will not take part All EU-countries can participate but only EU-countries Poland has not yet signed

European Patent with Unitary effect

• Aka the EU patent or Unitary

Patent

• At present 25 countries (green)

are participants: 27 EU countries minus Italy and Spain.

• Spain, Croatia (red) will not join

Patent or Court

• Italy (yellow) will join Unified

Court

• Poland (pink) may in time join

Patent

• Non EU countries (blue) are

not participants

63

European Patent with Unitary effect

• AKA the EU patent or the Unitary Patent
• Granted with same set of claims in all 25 countries
• Provides uniform protection having equal effect in all the

participating Member States.

• If it is limited, transferred, revoked or lapses, it does so in respect of

all participating EU patent Member States

• An EU patent may be licensed in respect of the whole or part of the

territories of the participating EU patent Member States

64

European Patent Today

• 1. European patent application designating 38 states
• 2. Grant of the European patent
• 3. Validation (translate + file) in each contracting state of choice

GB DE FR SE DK FI NL PL GR ES IT CH NO TR IS etc.

• 4. Payment of annual renewal fees in each country chosen

65

European Patent with Unitary Effect

• 1. European patent application designating 38 states
• 2. Grant of the European patent
• 3. Request for unitary effect in EUP member States,

validate in rest

EP patent with unitary effect in 25 Member States

• 4. One renewal fee

ES IT CH NO TR IS etc. not partici- non-EU countries pating 25 Member States

• 4. Renewal fees for each country

66

The Language issue - Translations

• Ultimately:

– For a granted European Patent no further translations are required for an EU patent (Regulation 1260/2012. Art. 3)

• European patents are published with a specification /

description in either English, French or German, with the claims translated to all three languages.

• Machine translations will suffice

67

Language – transition phase

– Transition phase

• until high quality machine translation is available – max 12 years

from 1. January 2014. Quality of machine translations evaluated after 6 years and every other year therefrom:

• If the EP patent is granted in French or German – translate

full patent to English

• If the EP patent is granted in English – translate full patent to

any other official language of the European Union* *TIP: If entering ES or IT, choose Spanish or Italian – otherwise Estonian translations are not expensive

68

Renewal fee for EU Patent

• Estimated costs for renewing a European patent in 25

EU states:

• Starting from about 10.000 EUR per year increasing to about

17.500 EUR per year

• Estimated costs for renewing an EU Patent in 25 EU

states:

• Starting from about 1.500 EUR per year increasing to about 2.500

EUR per year

69

Summary

70 EP patent EPO grants the Patent Validate (translate & file) in each of 38 member states Pay renewal fees in each country Expensive EU patent EPO grants the Patent ”Automatic” effect in 25 states, need validation in non-participating countries ONE renewal fee Cheap

et

• n

t

Unified Patent Court

71

Court Proceedings in Europe Today

• National and different court systems

– Infringement and validity heard by different courts in e.g. Germany – Infringement and validity heard by same court in most countries

• Reality: 75% of all patent cases in EU are heard in

Germany (in German)

72

Enforcement with Unified Patent Court

• One injunction, infringement or invalidity action with effect for (almost all)

EU states

• First instance:
• Local courts (one country),
• Regional courts (several countries), or
• Central court with 3 chambers

– Munich (mechanics) – Paris (electronics) – London (chemistry, pharma, biotech)

• Appellate court in Luxembourg

73

Court Structure

74

Court of Appeal

(Luxembourg)

Central Division

(Paris, London, Munich)

Local or Regional Divisions

• Technically qualified judge
• Legally qualified judge

Optional

Which Patents?

• Unified Patent Court has exclusive jurisdiction over:

– European Patents with Unitary Effect – European Patents (other than those with Unitary Effect)* – Supplementary Protection Certificates – * special provisions for EP patents (and their SPCs):

• For a period of 7 years after entry into force, cases can be

brought before national courts

• At the end of the 7 years period, patent proprietors and

applicants can opt out of the Unified Patent Court

75

Where to Sue?

76

In the country where the infringement takes place In the country where the defendant is domiciled Central Division when defendant is domiciled outside EU

Language

• Language of the country where the court resides
• Possibility to use an EPO language
• Possibility to use language of the granted patent
• Central division: language of the granted patent
• Possibility to obtain translation of documents and

during oral proceedings

77

Who can represent

• Attorneys competent to represent before a

national court

• European Patent Attorneys with European

Patent Litigation Certificate

• Attorneys can be assisted by European Patent

Attorneys who can speak at oral hearings

78

Procedure

• Written procedure with

– Statement of claim – Defence (within 3 months) – Reply to defence, Counterclaim, Reply to counterclaim, Rejoinder (1-2 months)

• Interim conference
• Oral proceedings (at least 2 months notice)
• Procedure for the award of damages
• Procedures for cost orders

79

Scepticism

• Short deadlines

– Similar speedy procedures apply in Germany, UK, Netherlands today

• All your eggs in one basket

– One trial in one language before one court with one set of attorneys => cost savings

• Forum shopping

– Forum shopping applies even more today – The appellate level will ensure uniform application of the law.

80

Will the Unitary Patent be a Success?

• Simpler – one case for the (whole of) EU (except Spain)
• Cheaper?
• Faster
• Harmonized case law
• Less forum shopping
• Better? – time will show

81

Thank You and Questions

Jens Viktor Nørgaard

jvn@hoiberg.com 011 45 3332 0337

Rebecca M. McNeill

rebecca.mcneill@vivicar.com 617.489.0002

82