tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post6569331703995026951..comments2024-03-05T15:49:16.751+00:00Comments on The SPC blog: Denmark's new post-Medeva guidelines on "specified"roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03575489215896576032noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-69018359298823801692013-02-11T08:14:52.782+00:002013-02-11T08:14:52.782+00:00"...many applications claim active ingredient..."...many applications claim active ingredients generically (e.g. by Markush formulae) because it takes further research to identify the best compound for clinical development". <br /><br />In that case, perhaps that patent application / patent is not the most appropriate basis for an SPC..?<br /><br />Why not file a selection patent as soon as you have indeed identified the compound that does in fact have some clinical benefit, and use that as the basis for your SPC. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-5167472175531928882013-02-10T16:51:30.554+00:002013-02-10T16:51:30.554+00:00Simple and easy maybe, but grossly unfair to innov...Simple and easy maybe, but grossly unfair to innovators and therefore contrary to the aims of the Regulation. INN names are assigned years after an active ingredient is first described - how can the INN be included in the initial patent application? Even IUPAC names will only be known if the particular active ingredient was described by the time the patent application was filed - many applications claim active ingredients generically (e.g. by Markush formulae) because it takes further research to identify the best compound for clinical development.<br /><br />Let's hope the CJEU understands the patent system enough to get it right this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6377401824680246858.post-15678589650382592782013-02-07T09:25:54.322+00:002013-02-07T09:25:54.322+00:00"A product may in some cases be considered to..."A product may in some cases be considered to be specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent, if the product is specified by functional terms. The actual protection will always be decided from case to case on a case by case basis."<br /><br />From case to case on a case by case basis. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. It will lead to inconsistency of approach, and thus uncertainty for both patentees and third parties. <br /><br />If the CJEU had simply been clearer in Medeva (by saying that specified in the wording of the claim means that you have have to write the name of the INN or its IUPAC name) then we would have a system that was simple and easy to apply. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com