Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13268
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Perry, Mark | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-08-20T11:18:00Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | The Lawyers Weekly (September 3, 2010), p. 14-15 | en |
dc.identifier.issn | 0830-0151 | en |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13268 | - |
dc.description.abstract | There 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.language | en | en |
dc.publisher | LexisNexis Canada Inc | en |
dc.relation.ispartof | The Lawyers Weekly | en |
dc.title | SCC clarifies areas of challenge for selection patents | en |
dc.type | Journal Article | en |
dc.subject.keywords | Intellectual Property Law | en |
dc.subject.keywords | Law and Legal Studies | en |
local.contributor.firstname | Mark | en |
local.subject.for2008 | 180115 Intellectual Property Law | en |
local.subject.for2008 | 189999 Law and Legal Studies not elsewhere classified | en |
local.subject.seo2008 | 949999 Law, Politics and Community Services not elsewhere classified | en |
local.subject.seo2008 | 929999 Health not elsewhere classified | en |
local.profile.school | School of Law | en |
local.profile.email | mperry21@une.edu.au | en |
local.output.category | C3 | en |
local.record.place | au | en |
local.record.institution | University of New England | en |
local.identifier.epublicationsrecord | une-20130802-113145 | en |
local.publisher.place | Canada | en |
local.format.startpage | 14 | en |
local.format.endpage | 15 | en |
local.identifier.issue | September 3, 2010 | en |
local.contributor.lastname | Perry | en |
dc.identifier.staff | une-id:mperry21 | en |
local.profile.orcid | 0000-0003-4251-3405 | en |
local.profile.role | author | en |
local.identifier.unepublicationid | une:13480 | en |
dc.identifier.academiclevel | Academic | en |
local.title.maintitle | SCC clarifies areas of challenge for selection patents | en |
local.output.categorydescription | C3 Non-Refereed Article in a Professional Journal | en |
local.relation.url | http://ssrn.com/abstract=1670089 | en |
local.relation.url | http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/ | en |
local.search.author | Perry, Mark | en |
local.uneassociation | Unknown | en |
local.year.published | 2010 | en |
Appears in Collections: | Journal Article School of Law |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format |
---|
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.