|
|
Author |
Topic: Product patents (Read 2794 times) |
|
Rahul Vartak
Guest
|
Hello Forum,
This is regarding the interpretations of Claim types.
Should we interpret that the claim for a new polymorph ,salt or hydrate / (A new form of previously approved compound.) is eligible to get a product patent status.?
The new product may have better stability than the original product claimed in the basic substance patent.
Rahul Vartak.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
M. Arthur Auslander
Full Member
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 541
|
 |
Re: Product patents
« Reply #1 on: May 4th, 2004, 5:14am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
If the product has or is likely to have commercial value, it would be prudent to start with a patent search and if encouraging, apply.
Maintain secrecy and avoid public use until your stature is clear. You want to be able to maintain treaty priority.
|
|
IP Logged |
M. Arthur Auslander
Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law
3008 Johnson Ave., New York, NY 10463
7185430266, aus@auslander.com
Reality Check® ELAINE's Workshop®
|
|
|
eric stasik
Full Member
director, patent08
Posts: 391
|
|
Re: Product patents
« Reply #2 on: May 4th, 2004, 6:14am » |
Quote Modify
|
Dear Mr. Vartak,
Yes. U.S. Patent 6,723,728, for example.
1. A polymorphic compound of (-)-cis-FTC, wherein the compound displays the following angular positions (two theta) of characteristic peaks in a powder X-ray diffraction pattern:
a. 14.7.degree..1.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 16.7.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 19.6.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 21.1.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 21.8.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 24.6.degree..+-.0.1.degree., and 25.6.degree..+-.0.1.degree.(Form II (-)-cis-FTC); or
b. 14.5.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 16.7.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 19.6.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 20.4.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 21.4.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 21.7.degree..+-.0.1.degree., 25.2.degree..+-.0.1.degree., and 26.2.degree..+-.0.1.degree.(Form III (-)-cis-FTC).
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&am p;p=1&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=polymorph.ACLM.&OS=ACLM/(polymorph)&RS=ACLM/polymorph
Man, am I glad that I'm not a chemical engineer!
Whenever I think it's hard for me to read electrical claims, all I do is look at one of these babies.
Kind Regards,
Eric Stasik
|
|
IP Logged |
eric stasik
director
http://www.patent08.com
patent08
patent engineering,
business development,
and licensing services
postbox 24203
104 51 stockholm
sweden
|
|
|
cicy
Newbie
Posts: 14
|
|
Re: Product patents
« Reply #3 on: May 4th, 2004, 7:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Dear vartak,
First of all, i must explain that i come form China, so my experience is based on the Chinese patent practice.
any inventions, which is wanted to be granted a patent right, should have novelty and inventiveness according to the patent laws of all the counties in the world. According to your description, i.e., the polymorph, salt or hydrate is a new form, the product has novelty. With respect to inventiveness, if you can prove that the new product will have much better stability thant the original product, and further prove that this improvement is unobvious, if possible, the product will have inventiveness.
By the way, according to my expercise, the requirements on the inventiveness in China is much strict than that in US. Therefore, if your product is allowed in China, i think it will patentable in US.
Best regards,
Cicy
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Rahul Vartak
Guest
|
Thanks All,
I would like to clarify my query.
The first patent basic patent claims all salts, hydrates in general along with the product (Active ingredient) and the second patent clams a specific salt or a specific hydrate of the Active ingredient.
The second patent also claims better stability.
In that case will the second patent get product patent status in the light of first one, considering both the patents are assigned to the same firm and the differnce in the filing date of both patents is around six to ten years.
Rahul Vartak.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Remove