fotogestoeber / Shutterstock.com
There are important differences between the EPO and the USPTO in the assessment of patentable subject matter in life sciences. Depending on the technology involved, patentees may elect national or regional applications as a useful alternative to PCT filings, as Joachim Wachenfeld and Oswin Ridderbusch explain.
The preamble of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) states the desire of the contracting states “to simplify and render more economical the obtaining of protection for inventions where protection is sought in several countries”.
This is done by filing one application that covers all contracting states. PCT filings therefore confer an enormous simplification for worldwide patent prosecution—in particular, requiring the filing of only a single initial application and allowing cost decisions to be postponed significantly. Many smaller biotechnology companies, often struggling with funding, have taken advantage of this system, which allows limited resources to be allocated more effectively.
From our experience, the key jurisdictions where patents are eventually pursued are nearly always multiple contracting states of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and the US, ie, prosecution before the European Patent Office (EPO) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
To continue reading this article and to access our full archive, digital magazines and special reports you will need a subscription.
If you have already subscribed please login.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription we can add you into, please email Atif at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any technical issues please email tech support.
For access to the complete website and archive choose '12 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION'. For a free, two-week trial select ‘TWO WEEK FREE TRIAL’.
USPTO, EPO, Myriad, EPO, BRCA, patent, PCT,