July 11, 2017: Your weekly dose from the world of patents. The Patent Chronicle is led by Syam Anand, who has been at the core of CSG’s development and an entrepreneur himself. This section is your go to destination every week for a capsule dose on the hottest happenings in the patent world. Syam has clinically dissected out every news on the decision, the background and the impact. He is also in the process of building his scicomm team for this section. If you would like to come aboard, mail him at email@example.com
Broad submits CRISPR patents to MPEG LA Pool
The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Among Those Participating in MPEG LA’s CRISPR-Cas9 Joint Licensing… https://t.co/RemNtaOxo9
— BusinessWireProducts (@BW_ProdServ) July 10, 2017
Decision: Broad Institute and its collaborators submitted all their CRISPR patents to MPEG LA LLC, a Colorado firm that specializes in creation of patent pools for licensing.
Impact: The submission of Broad CRISPR patents is a sign that the Institute and its collaborators are willing to make licensing of the technology easier for potential end-users and also share the proceeds from CRISPR technology. It is not clear whether UC Berkeley that enjoyed a wining streak in CRISPR patents in various national patent offices is also planning to join the pool. If it does, it will prevent potential users from having to obtain separate licenses from various entities that own the rights to the technology.
Canada rejects the Promise Doctrine
— Legal Affairs Canada (@LawScribes) July 10, 2017
Decision: A Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the Promise doctrine that may be used to invalidate a patent if it does not do everything it promises it will do, goes too far.
Reason: Apotex had sought to invalidate an Astra Zeneca patent using the doctrine as an arguing point. The court rejected Apotex’s argument and held that a “scintilla of utility” is sufficient and further that a single-use related to the subject matter was sufficient. In other words, not everything that is claimed has to work for a patent to be valid, just one would suffice to clear the utility threshold.
Impact: The ruling is a boon to patent owners. It makes Canadian IP law more predictable and will reduce litigations in Canada stemming from the controversial doctrine that put a higher threshold for Canadian patents vs. patents in the rest of the world. Canada was an outlier in this respect and cost patent owners. The doctrine was also a major irritant for US-Canada trade talks. Earlier, NAFTA had refused to intervene in a matter related to the doctrine brought in front of the agency by Eli Lily. The ruling clears the air for such cases in front of NAFTA too.
Small firm gets court ruling that stops Google from showing infringing products in search results
Blog: Canadian creative industry associations applaud Supreme Court of Canada decision in Equustek v Google. https://t.co/bE2ZUr6gHi
— Focus On Creators (@FocusOnCreators) July 10, 2017
Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling by a lower court that ordered Google to remove the website of a company that sold infringing products on its website.
Reason: Equustek had sued Datalink for infringement and won. Equustek also had an injunction against Google to remove Datalink websites from global search results. Google did not completely stop Datalink from appearing in the searches. Google argued that the injunction violated freedom of expression. The court held that Google actions were “determinative” in causing harm to Equustek. The court made it clear that freedom of expression does not require facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods, and violation of several court orders.
Impact: The ruling could set an international precedent in protecting intellectual property rights as it directly lays out the responsibilities of service providers. It will force them to take affirmative steps to prevent unlawful sales that affect rightful owners of IP. Organizations involved in civil liberties and freedom of expression rights are afraid that the ruling can set a wrong precedent.
Abbvie’s Humira patent troubles increase
— BestFuture (@IPWorld77) July 7, 2017
Decision: In an intra partes review brought by Boehringer Ingelheim, the USPTO’s PTAB invalidated five claims in a key Abbvie patent that covered Humira.
Reason: PTAB found that the claims are obvious in light of various combinations of publications that predate the patent.
Impact: Abbvie will face big competition from biosimilars who continue to score wins against Humira. Coherus Biosciences, Samsung Bioepis, Biogen, and Amgen are continuing to chip away at Humira’s exclusivity and patent rights in many parts of the world. As Humira is a major revenue source for Abbvie (60%), Abbvie is looking to diversify.
Access the key patent here
Source: Mimi and Eunice
About the author:
Authored by Dr Syam Anand, PhD (Indian Institute of Science, IISc; Post-Doctoral research, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Faculty, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Founder and US Patent Agent, Mainline Intellectual Property LLC, Ardmore, Philadelphia USA). Syam has over 20 years experience in diverse areas of Science with domain knowledge in Life Sciences and Intellectual Property. Dr. Anand is also an inventor and budding entrepreneur. A rationalist, Dr. Anand enjoys science at all levels and advocates the use of scientific methods for answering all questions and solving all problems and make common people curious and interested in understanding their worlds.
Feature image source: Pixabay
Blog design: Abhinav Dey
This work by ClubSciWri is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.