The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No. 15
14th April, 2021
This week we look at an appeal before the IPAB regarding acceptance of additional evidence even after date for hearing had been previously fixed. The IPAB also examined the issue of inventive step and ruled in favour of the patentee. Our blogpost this week discusses the topical issue of COVID-19 vaccines and the interplay of market forces, intellectual property rights, and public policy. We offer tips on drafting the transition clause of a patent, and conclude with a patent related FAQ answered by Dr. Feroz Ali.
PATENT CASE LAW SUMMARY
Pharmacyclics, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs Trademarks and Geographical Indications and Ors.
The Controller of Patents issued an order directing revocation of patent held by Pharmacyclics LLC, BTK Kinase Inhibitor Ibrutinib that is an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) of the drug IMBRUVICA used in the treatment of B-Cell malignancies. The Controller issued such an order after ascertaining that the claimed invention lacks inventive step and is anticipated by prior art. However, the IPAB in the instant appeal set aside the revocation. It was observed by the Board that the Controller’s conclusion of anticipation was possible only due to hindsight analysis, and such analysis was not permitted while examining a patent for inventive step. Read more
FROM OUR PATENT BLOG
Vaccine Pricing and COVID-19
The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) on 13th April 2021 cleared authorisation for emergency use of Sputnik-V, a Russsian product. Sputnik V is the third vaccine to get approval for rollout against the coronavirus infections in India after Covishield, the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine manufactured by the Serum Institute of India, and the home-grown Covaxin. Pfizer which had previously applied for emergency clearance with the DCGI in India is now on hold as the office of the DCGI has asked that bridge trials be conducted to verify data from international trial of the vaccine. The number of options available is a major factor in their pricing and in turn this is important to the landscape of healthcare policy in India. Read more
DRAFTING A PATENT – TRANSITION CLAUSE
- The use of “consisting of” lends the transition clause limited meaning and makes the claim close ended, especially in mechanical claims where the claim covers devices with all the recited elements, nothing more or lesser than that.
- The phrase “consisting of” has gained popularity among chemical patents due to the unpredictability of chemical combinations. Any addition of an element to a chemical combination could change the characteristics of the combination as they relate to the invention and hence the closed interpretations helps define the scope of the invention in a better fashion.
QUESTION: In divisional application, should the inventive concepts be same for the subsequent applications?
ANSWER: 100%. There is no doubt about it because what you do in a divisional is you repeat the description verbatim. Assume that there are 10 claims covering 2 inventions, 1-5 is one invention and the patent office feels that 6-10 is .. Read more and watch video explanation
That’s all folks for this week