Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13268
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPerry, Marken
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-20T11:18:00Z-
dc.date.issued2010-
dc.identifier.citationThe Lawyers Weekly (September 3, 2010), p. 14-15en
dc.identifier.issn0830-0151en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13268-
dc.description.abstractThere is a grey area for inventors - or more realistically, their employers - between the time when they know they have a good idea that will probably work, and having a demonstrably new invention that will be patentable. This leaves them with the challenge as to when to file for a patent and what it can cover. It has become common practice for the chemical, biotechnology, and drug industries to file for a patent (the "genus" patent) when the inventors have a discernible group of materials and compounds that can do "something," and which satisfies the requirements for utility, novelty and unobviousness, and then to continue working on those compounds in order to tease out best candidates with specific properties. In 'Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc.', [2008] S.C.J. No. 63, the innovator company Sanofi had obtained a genus patent covering a large group of compounds on the basis of years of work and sound prediction. In the genus patent there was no distinction drawn between the effects of different isomers, where the compounds have the same chemical formula, but one version rotates polarised light to the right, "dextrorotatory," and the other to the left, "levorotatory." One version of the compound can be imagined as a mirror image of the other.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherLexisNexis Canada Incen
dc.relation.ispartofThe Lawyers Weeklyen
dc.titleSCC clarifies areas of challenge for selection patentsen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.subject.keywordsIntellectual Property Lawen
dc.subject.keywordsLaw and Legal Studiesen
local.contributor.firstnameMarken
local.subject.for2008180115 Intellectual Property Lawen
local.subject.for2008189999 Law and Legal Studies not elsewhere classifieden
local.subject.seo2008949999 Law, Politics and Community Services not elsewhere classifieden
local.subject.seo2008929999 Health not elsewhere classifieden
local.profile.schoolSchool of Lawen
local.profile.emailmperry21@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC3en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20130802-113145en
local.publisher.placeCanadaen
local.format.startpage14en
local.format.endpage15en
local.identifier.issueSeptember 3, 2010en
local.contributor.lastnamePerryen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:mperry21en
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-4251-3405en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:13480en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleSCC clarifies areas of challenge for selection patentsen
local.output.categorydescriptionC3 Non-Refereed Article in a Professional Journalen
local.relation.urlhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1670089en
local.relation.urlhttp://www.lawyersweekly.ca/en
local.search.authorPerry, Marken
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.year.published2010en
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Law
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.