Jump to content
Patentability of Chemical Selection Inventions: The Olanzapine and Escitalopram Decisions / From the U.S. Perspective
Patentability of Chemical Selection Inventions: The Olanzapine and Escitalopram Decisions / From the U.S. Perspective
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
2–10
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
2–10
Details
11–16
I. Introduction
11–16
Details
17–20
II. Background
17–20
17–17
A. Markush type claim
17–17
Details
B. Enantiomers and Related Patents
Details
21–38
III. Jurisprudence on the patentability requirements for selection inventions
21–38
21–22
A. Facts of the Cases
21–22
21–21
1. Facts in Olanzapine
21–21
Details
2. Facts in Escitalopram
Details
22–31
B. Novelty Requirement
22–31
22–27
1. From the German Perspective: “Parting from Fluoran”
22–27
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
(1) Federal Patent Court Decision
Details
(2) Federal Court of Justice Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
(1) Federal Patent Court Decision
Details
(2) Federal Court of Justice Decision
Details
27–28
2. From the U.S. Perspective
27–28
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
28–31
3. From the UK Perspective: “Parting from IG Rule”
28–31
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
(1) Patent Court Decision
Details
(2) Court of Appeal Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
31–31
4. Summary
31–31
Details
31–38
C. Nonobviousness Requirement
31–38
31–33
1. From the German Perspective
31–33
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
33–35
2. From the U.S. Perspective
33–35
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
35–37
3. From the UK Perspective
35–37
Details
a) Markush Claim – Olanzapine Decision
Details
(1) Patent Court Decision
Details
(2) Court of Appeal Decision
Details
b) Enantiomer Invention – Escitalopram Decision
Details
(1) Court of Appeal Decision
Details
(2) The House of Lords Decision
Details
37–38
4. Summary
37–38
Details
38–38
D. Summary and Conclusion
38–38
Details
39–64
IV. Discussion
39–64
39–48
A. Anticipation
39–48
39–42
1. Relativity of Novelty
39–42
Details
42–44
2. Enablement as a Requirement for Anticipation
42–44
Details
44–47
3. Implications of Enablement Requirement in Anticipation
44–47
Details
a) The Test of Anticipation: Precedent Test of Obviousness?
Details
b) A Possible Ground for Challenging the Basic Patent
Details
c) Other Implications of the Rules for Disclosure in the Olanzapine Case
Details
47–48
4. Conclusion
47–48
Details
48–54
B. Obviousness
48–54
48–51
1. Prima Facie Obviousness
48–51
Details
a) Size of the Genus
Details
b) Structural Similarity
Details
c) Reasonable Expectation of Success
Details
51–52
2. Overcoming Obviousness
51–52
Details
a) Teach away
Details
b) Unexpected Results
Details
c) Other Secondary Considerations
Details
52–54
3. Considerations
52–54
Details
a) Person Skilled in the Art in the Olanzapine Decision
Details
b) Reasonable Expectation of Success: Escitalopram Decision
Details
54–54
4. Conclusion
54–54
Details
54–61
C. Impact of Lowering the Bar for the Patentability of Selection Inventions
54–61
54–55
1. Easier Extension of Exclusive Right: “Evergreening” or “Life-Cycle Management”
54–55
Details
55–61
2. More Limitations to Exploiting Selection Patents
55–61
Details
a) Scope of a Selection Invention over a Basic Patent
Details
b) Possible Solutions
Details
(1) Reverse Doctrine of Equivalence
Details
(2) Patent Act Consideration – Compulsory License
Details
(3) Competition Law Consideration – the Orange Book Standard Decision
Details
c) Conclusion
Details
61–64
D. Different view in other jurisdictions
61–64
61–63
1. Selection Inventions in Korea
61–63
Details
a) Clopidogrel Decision
Details
b) Atorvastatin Decision
Details
63–64
2. Selection Inventions in Japan
63–64
Details
64–64
3. Summary and Conclusion
64–64
Details
65–66
V. Conclusion
65–66
Details
67–68
Abstract
67–68
Details
69–76
List of Works Cited
69–76
Details
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY
Access
Patentability of Chemical Selection Inventions: The Olanzapine and Escitalopram Decisions , page 27 - 28
From the U.S. Perspective
Autoren
Hyewon Ahn
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783845232188-27
ISBN print: 978-3-8329-6524-2
ISBN online: 978-3-8452-3218-8
Chapter Preview
Chapter Preview
Share
Download PDF
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783845232188-27
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
