Patenting Antisense Oligonucleotides and Methods

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of the Keys to Successful Commercialization Gerald J. Siuta, Ph.D. President Siuta Consulting, Inc. Tucson, Arizona October 18, 2001.
Advertisements

Combinatorial Technology Supervisory Patent Examiner
Rule 105 Requirements in Plant Patent Applications Bruce Campell Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit
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.
Data/Working Examples: Role in Acquiring and Protecting a Patent Tina Williams McKeon April 12, 2012.
1 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the Wands Analysis Remy Yucel, SPE 1636 (571)
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Antibody Patents in India Pravin Anand 14 th October 2011 Anand and Anand.
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
Gene Therapy: Overcoming Enablement Rejections Karen M. Hauda Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1632 (703)
Proteomics and “Orphan” Receptors Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
Intellectual Property March 4, 2015 Don Keach Director, Intellectual Property Development and Technology Transfer Office Copyright University of Kentucky.
JPO’s Reliance on Experimental Results in Patent Applications -From the Aspect of Requirements for Description of Claims and Specification- JPAA International.
1 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) Gary Jones SPE, Technology Center 1600 (703)
Animals and Transgenesis Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Transgenic Animals — How they are made Examination of Transgenic.
EVALUATING SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 U. S. C
Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Topic: Examining Issues When.
CHAPTER 31 Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
Issues in Patenting Proteins Jon P Weber, SPE 1657.
1 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) A United States Perspective Stephen G. Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United.
General Microbiology (Micr300) Lecture 11 Biotechnology (Text Chapters: ; )
Examination Issues: Immunology Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600 USPTO (571)
1 Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples TC1600 Special Program Examiner Julie Burke (571)
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.. 2 Overview Introduction — Definitions Types of Stem Cells — Origin Examination of Stem Cell Claims — Statutes — Sample Claims.
Meanwhile in Europe: HGS Inc v Eli Lilly & co The industrial application test for novel proteins: All in the family? AIPLA Biotech committee meeting 25.
Understanding patent claims (f) Drug for the treatment of cancer.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
March 2009 Current Status of Biotech Patenting In India Kausalya Santhanam Ph.D Patent Agent USPTO, IPO Confidential.
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Utility Requirement in Canada. 2 Section 2 of the Patent Act: “invention” means any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of.
Transfection. What is transfection? Broadly defined, transfection is the process of artificially introducing nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) into cells, utilizing.
Public Policy Considerations and Patent Eligible Subject Matter Relating to Diagnostic Inventions Disclaimer: Any views expressed here are offered in order.
Routine Optimization Jean Witz, tQAS, TC
Patenting Interfering RNA
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Technology Center 1600 Michael P. Woodward Unity of Invention: Biotech Examples.
Anti-mRNA Strategies What is the antisense oligonucleotides? - Synthetic genetic material. - Interacts with natural genetic material (DNA or RNA) prevent.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Further Research Considerations April 30, Further Research & Development Considerations April 30, 2015.
Gene Therapy (IV) “Strategies and Applications” Dr. Aws Alshamsan Department of Pharmaceutics Office: AA87 Tel:
Patentability of Reach-Through Claims Brian R. Stanton Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600 (703)
Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Patentability Considerations in the 3-D Structure Arts Michael P. Woodward Supervisory Patent Examiner.
Trilateral Project WM4 Report on comparative study on Examination Practice Relating to Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Haplotypes. Linda S.
[ w w w. d u a n e m o r r i s. c o m ] ● ©2008 Duane Morris LLP. All Rights Reserved. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP. ●
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.
Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU
“The Squeeze” Art and Enablement Together Yvonne L. Eyler, SPE AU 1646.
Patenting Interfering RNA John LeGuyader – SPE Art Unit 1635 (571)
Triplex forming oligonucleotides (TFO)
How to Claim your Biotech- Based Invention Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Pharmaceutical Composition Claims and Enablement Robert J. Hill, Jr. Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center
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
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
Molecular Cell Biology Logic and Approaches to Research Cooper.
1 Utility Guidelines, Homology Claims and Anti-Sense Molecule Claims Drew Hissong, Ph.D. dhissong*sughrue.com Sughrue Mion, PLLC
Nov. 26, 2006 Kuzuwa & Partners1 Care required to draft pharma patents and prosecution of pharma patents Ahmedabad, November 26, 2006 Kiyoshi Kuzuwa Patent.
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Antibody Decisions and Their Compliance with the Written Description Requirement Workgroup
Ahmedabad, November 26, 2006 Kiyoshi Kuzuwa Patent Attorney
Introduction and Definitions
Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products
Patentability Issues and Mechanism Claims
Stem Cells Peter Paras, Jr.
miR-122 – A key factor and therapeutic target in liver disease
Molecular Basis for Target RNA Recognition and Cleavage by Human RISC
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Examination Issues: Immunology
Presentation transcript:

Patenting Antisense Oligonucleotides and Methods Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D. Acting Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1636

Antisense Art Unit Art Unit 1635 John LeGuyader, SPE Created October 1996 Art Unit 1636 George Elliott, Ph.D. SPE On fellowship at the National Academy of Sciences

Mechanism of Antisense

Antisense Technologies Antisense Oligonucleotides (Oligos) Catalytic Nucleic Acids: Ribozymes and Dnazymes Triplex Pnas and Other Nonstandard Nucleic Acids Aptamers Decoys Nucleic Acid Modifications Oligo-based Gene Regulation and Gene Therapy

Issued U. S. Patents Classified in 536/24 Issued U.S. Patents Classified in 536/24.5 – Nucleic Acid Expression Inhibitors (as of July 17, 2001) Data obtained using USPTO WEST subclass search for all issued patents citing 536/24.5 - Nucleic Acid Expression Inhibitor

Case Law Antisense-Specific: Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Calgene Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Enablement - antisense highly unpredictable Decision is based on patents with effective filing dates of at least 1989 and the technology at that time Decision does not necessarily determine the outcome for examination of antisense patent applications recently filed because current knowledge and level of skill in the art is high (antisense has progressed as a technology since 1989)

Gene Walk

Antisense Oligonucleotide Claims Consider a Broad Claim To: An antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits expression of a nucleic acid encoding protein X.

Utility Requirement Utility generally not an issue for antisense. If no function for target nucleic acid (protein or regulatory) is shown or was known: antisense would likely lack utility also raises enablement (how to use) and possibly written description issues probe function alone for target not sufficient to provide utility for antisense, but may be for purposes other than claiming antisense.

Written Description Requirement Written description generally not an issue for broad claims to antisense oligos inhibiting expression of a nucleic acid encoding a protein. May lack written description if the claim reads on targeting many different nucleic acids. Analysis turns on what is shown in the specification and what was known about the various versions of the gene at the time of filing. Provide evidence that antisense targets identified in one gene correlate with targets in other versions of the gene.

Enablement Requirement Probability of finding functional antisense oligonucleotide to a target gene is high. Predictability of any single antisense oligonucleotide being effective is low Claim to specific antisense oligonucleotide may require evidence of function The current state of predictability for antisense may support a broad claim to antisense oligonucleotides But this may also raise prior art issues depending on what was known at the time of filing

Pharmaceutical and Method Claims Consider Broad Claims To: A pharmaceutical composition comprising an antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits expression of a nucleic acid encoding protein X. A method of treating a disease comprising administering an antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits expression of a nucleic acid encoding protein X.

Enablement Analysis for In Vivo Method Claims Describe scope of the claimed invention Cite known unpredictability in the art via journal articles Indicate amount of guidance in the specification Indicate presence or absence of working examples Identify additional experimentation that would be required

Enablement Requirement Commonly Cited References Used by Examiners to Support Unpredictability in Antisense: Crooke, S.T. “Basic principles of antisense therapeutics”, Chapter 1, pages 1-50, Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 131, “Antisense Research and Application”, Ed.Cooke, S.T., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998. Crooke, S.T. “Progress in antisense technology: the end of the beginning”, Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 313, pages 3-45, 2000. Agrawal et al. “Antisense therapeutics: is it as simple as complementary base recognition?”, Molecular Medicine Today, Vol. 6, Pages 72-81, February 2000. Jen et al. “Suppression of gene expression by targeted disruption of messenger RNA: available options and current strategies”, Stem Cells, Vol. 18, pages 307-319, 2000. Sun et al. “Catalytic nucleic acids”, Pharmacological Reviews, Vol. 52, Pages 325-347, 2000.

Enablement Requirement Commonly Cited Unpredictable Factors for Antisense: Predicting target accessibility Target folding/structure Antisense/target protein interactions Lack of correlation between in vitro and in vivo Efficient delivery to cells and cell targeting for specific disorders Oligo affinity/stability in vivo * Predicting target accessibility. - Screening for best sites still required in most cases for in vivo. * Efficient delivery to cells and cell targeting for specific diseases/conditions. - Adequate intracellular levels of ODNs in view of poor transit across cell membranes. - Immunologic effects from unmethylated G-C sequences and modified ODNs. - Toxicity effects from high concentrations and/or ODN modifications. * ODN Affinity/Stability in vivo - Intracellular ODN breakdown by nucleases. - Largely overcome by chemical modifications of sugar, base and backbone which retain the RNase-H activation. * In vitro (cell culture) results are generally not considered predictive and/or representative of successful in vivo delivery and/or treating disorders. * Evidence should be provided that an animal model is art recognized, especially for human applicability.

Enablement Requirement Modulation of target In vitro (cell culture) results generally  in vivo success Animal model shown may not be art recognized Human data is not ordinarily required by the examiner for in vivo claims But may be the only evidence to enable treatment claims Disorder dependent issue

Obviousness Expect an obviousness rejection against broad antisense claims to known genes if the prior art suggested inhibiting the gene by antisense or other means and the gene sequence was known. The current knowledge and level of skill in the art is high such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect at least one effective antisense against every known gene (e.g. a full-length antisense), absent evidence to the contrary. Narrow claims to specific antisense oligos may be free of the art, since there may be no motivation to modify the prior art to achieve the specific antisense sequence claimed.

Recommendations Claim functional antisense oligos by specific sequence if you have evidence of activity. List Results of “Gene Walk” Showing activity of each oligo “Gene walk” data may provide representative number of species for broad breadth/scope for a generic claim, but there is no magic number If you can’t claim antisense because of 112 issues, try claiming probes.

Recommendations Provide claims commensurate in scope with the disclosure of the specification Consider the scope of the target nucleic acid. Consider the scope of disease/disorder being treated. Consider the scope of route of administration. Consider the scope of vector delivery system.

Recommendations Provide objective evidence that in vitro results are representative of in vivo applicability. Respond to examiner-cited unpredictable factors with objective evidence to the contrary. Expert opinions are more favorably viewed when supported using objective evidence. Provide objective evidence that a particular animal model is generally accepted as representative of disease or methods of treating, particularly for humans.

Recommendations Objective Evidence Case law Journal articles Experimental data Comparisons commensurate with the disclosure as filed.

QUESTIONS? John LeGuyader Robert Schwartzman SPE - Art Unit 1635 (703) 308-0447 john.leguyader@uspto.gov Robert Schwartzman Acting SPE - Art Unit 1636 (703) 308-7307 robert.schwartzman@uspto.gov

Patenting Antisense Oligonucleotides and Methods Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D. Acting Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1636