Our IPKat Posts on the USPTO Guidance, China, Forsgren's SPC and Biotech Financing

We've been writing for the IPKat blog. Here are some of our recent posts on that blog:

The New USPTO Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

This post briefly describes the latest guidance based on the Mayo, Myriad and Alice cases, giving a brief history of how 'eligibility' has evolved from the Bilski case onwards.

China's IP journey: from 'bad guys' to 'good guys' to patent superpower

A brief history of how China's patent system developed, often in line with its own interests, and what other countries might learn from it.

Forsgren's SPC; what does the marketing authorisation have to say about the active ingredient

This reviews a recent decision on an SPC from the CJEU, and places it in the context of SPC case law.

Biotech financing: the risk components, 'going long' and patents as knowledge currency

A review of the early stage financing landscape in the area of therapeutics and how collaborations and ecosystems are becoming increasingly important, thus changing the way that patents are used.

Even More on the New Eligibility Guidance, Myriad and Promega v Life Tech

The new Guidance is available here. A PDF version is available here. The associated ‘Nature-Based Products’ examples are available here.

A further article from IPWatchdog discussing the new guidance can be found here. It discusses in detail how the new guidance differs from the previous one and how this should mean that more computer-implemented inventions will be found to be eligible. Whilst the IPWatchdog blog has had the most negative reaction to the Alice decision of all the blogs we read, it is also the one that has had the most informative comments on the implications of the changes in law in this area.

In another post IPWatchdog discusses the ‘significantly more’ part of the Alice test and how this can be shown (see here).

Personalised Medicine Bulletin discusses the life sciences aspects of new guidance with a focus on the new Myriad decision (see here). It notes the ‘markedly different’ analysis which can be used to support eligibility of products related to natural products.

Pepper Hamilton discuss the Myriad decision here, and comment on what it means for biotech and diagnostics patents in general.

PatentlyO discusses Promega v Life Tech here. This is about enablement of a claim where the term ‘comprising’ brings in other embodiments which are not shown to be enabled, i.e. combinations of loci that might not co-amplify. This seems a much stricter way of looking at enablement than in Europe.

Our previous posts on the new guidance can be found here and here.