Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Disclaimer: The information provided by the USPTO is meant as an educational resource only and should not be construed as legal advice or written law.
Advertisements

Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
1 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the Wands Analysis Remy Yucel, SPE 1636 (571)
Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Enforcement - Law and Policy November 5-8, 2007 United States Patent and Trademark Office Global Intellectual Property.
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
Proteomics and “Orphan” Receptors Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
1 Biotechnology Partnership Meeting April 17, 2001 James Martinell Senior Level Examiner Technology Center 1600.
Determination of Obviousness Practice Under the Genus-Species Guidelines and In re Ochiai; In re Brouwer Sreeni Padmanabhan & James Wilson Supervisory.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patent Processing – Examination Issues Patent, Trademark, and Copyright - Law and Policy 5-8 November 2007 Amman, Jordan Global Intellectual Property Academy.
Animals and Transgenesis Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Transgenic Animals — How they are made Examination of Transgenic.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Examining Issues When.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 25, 2008 Patent - Utility.
Introduction to Nonobviousness Patent Law
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 28, 2007 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 27, 2008 Patent - Enablement.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 16, 2009 Patent – Novelty.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 14, 2007 Patent - Utility.
Lauren MacLanahan Office of Technology Licensing GTRC.
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
SECTION 101 OF THE PATENT LAW Describes what is patentable subject matter: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
1 Intellectual Property Protection for Plants in the United States Anne Marie Grünberg Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Units 1661 and 1638.
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Stem Cells — Origin Examination of Stem Cell Claims — Statutes — Sample Claims.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
1 ANTICIPATION BY INHERENCY IN PRIOR ART James O. Wilson Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
1 Kathleen Kerr Bragdon Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 Kathleen Kerr Bragdon Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 Patents.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Routine Optimization Jean Witz, tQAS, TC
Overcoming Prior Art References Non-Enabling Prior Art References Gary Kunz SPE Art Unit 1616.
Josiah Hernandez Patentability Requirements. Useful Having utilitarian or commercial value Novel No one else has done it before If someone has done it.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Patentability of Reach-Through Claims Brian R. Stanton Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600 (703)
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
Josiah Hernandez What can be Patented. What can be patented A patent is granted to anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
Claims, Anticipation, and Obviousness Kathleen Kahler Fonda Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration July 30, 2010.
1. 35 USC § 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015 Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.
INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY ARDIN MARSCHEL SPE AU 1631 (571)
1 Enablement Issues in Pharmaceutical Claims Joseph K. M c Kane Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit Ardin Marschel Supervisory Patent.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
© 2008 International Intellectual Property June 16, 2009 Class 2 Introduction to Patents.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
LYDON - TERMINAL DISCLAIMERS1 Terminal Disclaimer (TD) A Terminal Disclaimer states that the patent –will expire on the same date as a related.
BLW 360 – January 27, 2015 Jonathan LA Phillips
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Ram R. Shukla, Ph.D. SPE AU 1632 & 1634 Technology Center
Patents IV Nonobviousness
Global Innovation Management Workout on Writing a Patent
Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003
Patentable Subject Matter
A tutorial and update on patentable subject matter
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.

Overview Introduction Types of Stem Cells Definitions Types of Stem Cells Origin Examination of Stem Cell Claims Statutes Sample Claims

Introduction: Definitions Totipotency The ability of a single cell to divide and produce all the differentiated cells in an organism, including extraembryonic tissues. Pluripotency The potential of a cell to differentiate into any of the three germ layers: endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm; any cell except for extraembryonic tissue, such as placenta.

Introduction: Definitions Multipotency Cellullar potential to become cells from multiple but a limited number of lineages. Induced Pluripotency Pluripotential of a cell derived from a somatic cell by inducing a “forced” expression of certain genes

Types of Stem Cells Totipotent Stem Cells Oocyte/Sperm Zygote

Types of Stem Cells (cont.) Pluripotent Stem Cells Embryonic Stem Cells Inner cell mass Embryonic Germ Cells Develop into eggs and sperm Isolated from the gonad ridge of a fetus Humans > 8th embryonic week Embryonic Carcinoma cells Cells from a germ cell tumor

Types of Stem Cells (cont.) Multipotent Stem Cells Lineage restricted Referred to by their tissue of origin Hematopoietic stem cell Neural stem cell

Types of Stem Cells (cont.) Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Somatic cell (fibroblast) Pluripotency genes Oct3/4, Sox2, c-Myc, and Klf4 Reprogrammed Pluripotent Germ-line Chimeras

Common Examination Issues in Stem Cells Patents 35 USC 101 Utility Statutory Invention 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph Enablement 35 USC 103-Obviousness 35 USC 102-Novelty

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Utility Section 101 of title 35, United States Code, provides: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Utility Specific, Substantial, and Credible Use must be based upon specific (particular) combination of elements Stem cell + Potential + Marker General use such as assaying or culturing would not be considered substantial, unless invention is directed to enhanced assaying or culturing Credibility assessed from perspective of skill and knowledge in the art

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Utility (cont.) Sample Claim: A multipotent stem cell expressing markers A and Z, wherein the stem cell is capable of producing neurons.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Utility (cont.) Considerations: What is known about multipotent stem cells? Art and Specification Function/Lineages/Potential? Is there a correlation between the disclosed stem cells expressing markers A and Z and neuronal lineage? What are the disclosed utilities of the multipotent stem cells? General or Specific?

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Utility (cont.) Considerations (cont.) Utility Analysis: Cellular Markers A and Z are Associated with Neuronal Lineages Disclosed Utilities Include Production of Neurons for Transplantation Therapy Treatment of Disease http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/utility.pdf

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Statutory Invention Section 101 of title 35, United States Code, provides: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Statutory Invention (cont.) As the Supreme Court has recognized, Congress chose the expansive language of 35 U.S.C. 101 so as to include “anything under the sun that is made by man” as statutory subject matter. MPEP 2105-2106. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308-09, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980).

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Statutory Invention (cont.) Is The Claimed Invention Statutory? Subject Matter Eligible? Machine or Transformation? Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. Fed. Reg. 75(143), July 27, 2010. Product of Nature? Hand of Man? Humans? 1077 O.G. 24, April 21, 1987.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Statutory Invention (cont.) Sample Claim A hematopoeitic stem cell.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Statutory Invention (cont.) Considerations Product of Nature? Hand of Man Prior Art Invention known Does the Claim Embrace Humans?

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 112, 1st paragraph The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 provides: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Enablement How to “make” the stem cells Isolating from tissue Culturing Characterizing Marker Expression Potential Consider reproducibility and scope of claims

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Enablement (cont.) What is the “use” of the stem cell? Is it based upon the marker expression? Is it based upon potential?

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Enablement (cont.) Consider Wands factors-MPEP 2164.01(a) Breadth of the Claims Nature of the Invention The state of the Prior Art The Level of One of Ordinary Skill The Level of Predictability in the Art The Amount of Direction Provided by the Inventor The Existence of Working Examples The Quantity of Experimentation Needed to Make or Use the Invention Based on the Content of the Disclosure In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Enablement (cont.) Sample Claim A method of producing liver cells, comprising culturing a pluripotent stem cell in the presence of factors for at least a week to produce liver cells.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-Enablement (cont.) Considerations Are liver cells predictably produced from pluripotent stem cells? Breadth of claims Working Examples State of Art Regarding Culturing of Pluripotent Stem Cells and Liver Cells Factors Required Liver Biology/Markers Guidance/Teachings Provided by the Specification

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 103 35 U.S.C. 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 103 What’s in a Claim? Broad limitation to a stem cell? Specific limitation to markers, characteristics, or outcomes? Outcome “expected”? Are markers, characteristics or outcomes required?

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 103 (cont.) Sample Claim: A method of transplanting liver cells, comprising culturing a pluripotent stem cell in the presence of factors for at least a week to produce liver cells; and transplanting the produced liver cells into the liver of a subject in need thereof.

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 103 (cont.) Considerations Culturing of pluripotent stem cells to produce liver cells known? Specification Prior art Routine to transplant liver cells?

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 102 35 U.S.C. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent, or (b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States,

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 102 (e)the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language;

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 102 What’s in a claim? Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claimed Invention Consistent with the Teachings of the Specification Prior Art Invention Known? All Claimed Embodiments Taught? Inherent Properties? Same stem cell-different properties Claimed and prior art stem cells appear structurally the same

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 102 (cont.) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best,562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01

Examination Issues in Stem Cell Patents-35 USC 102 (cont.) [Therefore,] the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.

Questions Thank You! Peter Paras, Jr Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1632 571-272-4517