Search results for

Biotech leader Genentech has an R&D budget of over $300 million.

US: A federal judge in San Francisco ruled December 7 that a patent for DNA analysis owned by Swiss biotechnology company Hoffman-La Roche was obtained by deliberately misleading the USPTO and is invalid. US District Judge Vaughn Walker upheld a challenge by Promega which argued that scientists got the patent in 1990 through false claims. Those scientists worked for Cetus, which sold rights to the patent to Hoffman La Roche in 1991. The patented substance is called Taq DNA Polymerase. Cetus inventors had convinced the patent office that they had a substance better than those developed in the 1980s. Hoffman-La Roche is appealing, and contends that the ruling invalidates the patent for only one form of Taq, and not for the more common and lucrative recombinant Taq.

In today's fast-moving markets, successful new products and services are the key to success

EPO gives green light to Novartis

After several aborted attempts at legislation and a WTO hearing last year, India is now rushing through laws to overhaul its IP protection and comply with TRIPs.

As an outgrowth of the rule of Markman v Westview Instruments, Inc, 517 US 380 (1996) in which the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed an en banc majority ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that patent claim construction is an issue of law for the court to determine, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, on November 8 1999 in TMPatents LP v International Business Machines Corp (53 USPQ 2d 1093, 1096-1104) ruled that a patentee whose patent claims were construed by a court in an earlier litigation is collaterally estopped to challenge that construction in a later suit involving the same patent. The ruling is one of first impression and has not yet been addressed by the Federal Circuit itself.

The variety patent is granted according to the Romanian law if the following criteria are met by the new plant variety: novelty, distinctiveness, homogeneity and stability.

In Poland, utility models are distinguished as separate subjects of industrial property from inventions. Pursuant to the statutory definition, utility models are new and useful solutions of a technical character concerning the shape, structure or configuration of an object having a solid form. A utility model, like an invention, is considered new if it is not a part of the state of art, which means it has not been made available to the public before the date determining the priority to exclusive right (protection). However, unlike patentable inventions a utility model does not have to meet the grounds of non-obviousness (invention level). Therefore protection can be granted to a utility model despite the fact that for a qualified person it is obvious that the model originates from prior art.

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decision in a case where the applicant for a patent had in 1997, by virtue of Article 27 and Article 70 (7) of the TRIPs Agreement, amended the claims of an international patent application filed in 1993 to cover product protection for pharmaceuticals.

Genentech's settlement with the University of California has just cost the San Francisco company a cool $200 million