Comments on India’s draft biotech patent guidelines posted
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Comments on India’s draft biotech patent guidelines posted

The India Patent Office has released public feedback to its draft guidelines for the examination of biotechnology patents

The guidelines were released on December 11 2013 with a public comment period until January 11. The Patent Office received comments from Indian biotechnology firms, patent law firms, and groups such as the Organisation of Pharmaceuticals Producers of India (OPPO), the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and even the Japan Intellectual Property Association.

The Spicy IP blog described the publication as a “welcome development”.

The introduction to the draft guidelines state that they are intended to address serious concerns concerning “novelty, obviousness, industrial applicability, extent of disclosure and clarity in claims” which often arise in biotechnology patents. The guidelines also note that there are issues unique to biotechnology, “such as those relating to moral and ethical concerns, environmental safety, issues relating to patenting of ESTs (expressed sequence tags) of partial gene sequences, cloning of farm animals, stem cells, [and] gene diagnostics”.

Representatives of rights holders have expressed concern that the guidelines take too strict a view on patentability. OPPI, the industry group for large international pharmaceutical companies, said in its submission that the guidelines used an overly broad definition of obviousness. It also said that some of the provisions lacked clarity, that some limitations such as the prohibition of patenting methods of treatment appear to be broader in the guidelines’ examples than in the guideline text.

Similarly, Anand & Anand, who represents a number of large international pharmaceutical companies, stressed in its comments that the draft outlines do not have the force of law and argue that some of the illustrations are inconsistent with Patent Office practice.



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

AI
Tennessee has passed the ELVIS Act, a law that fights against AI models that mimic the voice and likeness of music artists
Rob Stien, chief communications and public policy officer at InterDigital, says the EU has forgotten innovators while trying to solve an issue that doesn’t exist
As Australia’s Qantm IP leans towards being acquired by a private equity company, sources discuss what it could mean for IP firms
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
Nghiem Xuan Bac Pham, managing partner of Vision & Associates, discusses opportunities created by the US-China rift as well as profitability issues facing IP practices
Douglas Leite and two of his colleagues were intrigued by Bhering Advogados’s mission to grow its patent litigation practice
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Counsel explain how pricing flexibility, patent agents and being business partners can help them maintain profitable patent prosecution practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Speakers at an INTA event weighed in on why firms should create AI use policies and how they stay on top of the latest developments
Gift this article