Tuesday, 28 February 2017

New Era of Turkish Intellectual Property Law

Turkey has been waiting for decades to adopt a unified law on the protection of Intellectual property (IP) rights. With the new IP Law no. 6769, in force as of January 10th, 2017, this reformed IP law is the first of its kind, regulating, patents, trademarks, designs, and geographical indications under one umbrella. In this amendment, the IP Law changed the name of the Turkish Patent Institute to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office; simplifies the proceedings; and adopts a better system for protection and enforcement of industrial property rights by recognizing co-existence agreements and consent letters for trademarks.

The IP Law amendment offers incentives for inventors as well by offering better support for R&D activities, introduction of post grant opposition, expansion of compulsory license criteria, getting rid of unexamined patents, acknowledging traditional product names together with geographical indications. In another significant move, the competent authority is also changed from the courts to the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office for non-use actions. Further, to develop a stronger legal environment to combat counterfeiting, the opposition period for trademarks and designs is shortened to two months and three months respectively.
http://www.ingeniousebrainsolutions.com/new-era-of-turkish-intellectual-property-law-2/

Friday, 24 February 2017

FDA’s Final Rule For Quicker Generic Approvals

Dr. D. C. Tayal, Ingenious e Brain Solutions, explores the implementation of US FDA’S new rule pertaining to laws that govern the submission and approval of AND A and 505b (2) applications, which maintains a balance between the generic drugs approval and acknowledging the innovation presented by brand name drugs.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has introduced a significant change in the arena of pharmaceutical patents through its decision to revamp the rules pertaining to Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA), 2003. The new regulations – referred to as final rule – were published in the federal register on October 6, 2016, under the title “Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications”. These revised rules have been effective from December 5, 2016. The final rule published by FDA is an implementation of the part of the rules it proposed in February 2015.
Read More about this Click here https://goo.gl/4WsReT

Thursday, 23 February 2017

Can You Patent your Invention?



The Remark Can You Patent Your Invention is nowdays most askable question. The Idea is the First step towards the invention and undoubtedly, an inventor think about any invention only when they have any idea. The Journey between where you are now and where you want to be is same the journey between your idea and your Invention.

The First step of this Journey is to understand what type of inventions and ideas are capable of patent. There are three types of Patent for which you can apply i.e. utility patents, design patents, or plant Patents. So, you need to understand your patent type for which you want to apply. After that, to determine if your idea can be patented, review the USPTO Office list of what can and cannot be patented which is also available online. Your Idea should be count as an invention if it is unique and not available in the USPTO List.

There is a question which pops out in your mind that will it be useful or not?so, before going for patent ask yourself this question that will researchers,manufacturers like your idea or will they go for it or not? If you are confident that your idea is unique then u can pass all the tests which required in the Procedure.

There are so many inventors who have some idea and worried about that someone will steal it or place them in market place. Then, Obviously you have to go first for Patentability Search even before telling this thing to anyone.

The most tough step is write an application to the patent office about your invention because you have to describe each and every thing in details. For example, How to make, How to Start, How it will work e.t.c. and also you have to add some figures of the idea with detailed description of your invention.When you complete with your all credentials just upload it on USPTO site.

There are also provisions for patenting procedures which vary in different jurisdictions. For instance, in India, the government has amended the patent rules and has introduced the “instant option” for startups. For startups, time period for grant of patents will be reduced from five-seven years to two and a half years (implementation till 2018). In addition, the cost of filing patent has been also reduced. Similarly, in US as per Patent Rules, 2003, expedited services for patent filing and fee concession are already in place for startups

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

The CRISPR Dispute

The CRISPR/Cas systems (clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)–CRISPR-associated protein) represent a versatile tool for genome engineering, has been hailed as the “Breakthrough of the Year” for 2015, and rightfully so. The CRISPR/Cas originates from type II CRISPR/Cas systems, which provide bacteria and archaea with adaptive immunity for defense against viruses and plasmids by cleaving its nucleic acid.

Functional CRISPR/Cas loci comprise a CRISPR array of identical repeats intercalated with invader DNA-targeting spacers that encode the crRNA components and an operon of cas genes encoding the Cas protein components. CRISPR mediated immunity mainly occurs in three stages i.e. (i) insertion of a short sequence of the invading DNA as a spacer sequence into the CRISPR array; (ii) transcription of precursor crRNA (pre-crRNA) that undergoes maturation to generate individual crRNAs, each composed of a repeat portion and an invader targeting spacer portion; and (iii) crRNA-directed cleavage of foreign nucleic acid by Cas proteins at sites complementary to the crRNA spacer sequence (Sanderet.al, 2014).
The real value of the , however, was soon recognized as a gene editing with clear promise not only for basic science applications, but also for its therapeutic potential. CRISPR-related research and applications efforts have shown a stunning progress, triggering a revolution in the genome wide studies, resulting in several companies seeking to develop technologies that focus on CRISPR-based therapeutics. Globally, scientists, biotech and drug companies, and university licensing officers are trying to capitalize on the research opportunities offered by this and are using this versatile system on a multitude of species.
Although promising, many questions do remain with regard to CRISPR-based therapies e.g., immune response against the CRISPR therapeutic and off target editing effects. In addition, there are also many regulatory and safety concerns that must be considered as these technologies and therapies are being developed, including the potential for non-therapeutic use, like editing the genes of unborn children for engineering perfect baby.
The Patent Controversy
As with all landmark inventions (e.g., identification of the HIV), there is controversy about who developed the idea first and who has patent rights to it. Given the commercial potential of CRISPR-Cas9 system, patenting is an obvious concern. In a legal maneuver with billion dollar implications two of the most powerful universities in the US are engaged in a vicious war over the priority to the invention of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. In this battle, first blood was to Feng Zhang (Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) who won the first of several sweeping patents that cover using CRISPR in eukaryotes—or any species whose cells contain a nucleus. That meant that they’d won the rights to use CRISPR in mice, pigs, cattle, humans—in essence, in every creature other than bacteria. Zhang’s opponents are Jennifer Doudna (University of California, Berkeley) and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Helmholz Centre for Infection and Research) who have publicly described the CRISPR-Cas9 editing in the journal Science in 2012 (Jinek M et al 2012).
Although Doudna and Charpentier filed a patent application seven months before Zhang’s, Feng Zhang was able to get a patent under the old ‘first to invent’ rules (which to date are no longer applied). Under ‘first to invent’ the one being able to prove that he was first to make the discovery, wins the patent, regardless of the date of filing. The Broad Institute claims that the paper by Dr. Doudna and Dr. Charpentier in 2012 did not demonstrate how to alter DNA in cells with nuclei, including human cells, something requiring the inventive steps. Since these applications were filed prior to March 16, 2013, the inventor(s) who first invented this invention have the right to patent it, and disputes regarding who was the first to invent are resolved using a procedure called an interference.
Figure 1: CRISPR-CAS9 patent war wordcloud
In January 2016, PTAB granted UC Berkeley’s request for a patent interference (Interference No. 106,048 under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.203(b)) between its filed application for the use of CRISPR in vitro and in prokaryotes and Zhang’s patent that specifically described the use of CRISPR in eukaryotes. In December 2016, the court heard the only oral arguments to be given on the case. UC Berkeley’s lawyer argued that Zhang’s accomplishments in eukaryotes were an obvious extrapolation of Doudna and Charpentier’s work, and thereby Broad’s patent was interfered with the earlier application. To counter the Broad’s lawyer argued that the University of California’s patent application did not specify how CRISPR–Cas9 editing could be adapted for use in eukaryotic cells and Doudna were facing troubles in eukaryotic system. The Broad’s patents did make that distinction: as a result, the lawyers argued, the two patent families would not overlap.
Broad Prevails in CRISPR Patent Interference Case
After 13 months, on 15 February 2017, judges at USPTO ruled in favor of the Broad Institute and declared “that there is no interference-in-fact” between the two parties. In other words, key CRISPR patents awarded to the Broad beginning in 2014 are sufficiently different from patents applied for by University of California, Berkeley that they can stand. In their 51-page decision, the USPTO judges note that Broad’s patent claims are limited to using CRISPR/Cas9 in eukaryotes—organisms such as plants and animals. Berkeley’s patent makes broader claims over using CRISPR in any organism. But in 2012, when the patent was filed, the researchers had only demonstrated CRISPR’s ability to edit genes in prokaryotes—such as bacteria. They applied the technique to eukaryotes shortly thereafter.
The ruling makes no stipulations about approval of Berkeley’s patent, which had been held up by the interference. It will now undergo its own review. Berkeley could appeal the finding to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or it could goes back to the Patent Office and continues to argue their claim. The outcome would dictate whether whatever claims Berkeley is entitled to are limited to using the system in prokaryotes — or whether their claims apply to the use in eukaryotic cells of plants, animals and humans. If Berkeley’s claim is limited to bacteria, “it would be a tremendous financial blow to Berkeley.

CRISPR-Cas9 Licensing
In this patent war the stakes are very high. The control of the patent is crucial for a phalanx of biotech startups racing to commercialize CRISPR . In assessing the current landscape of CRISPR-Cas9 patents, it is readily apparent that the space is largely dominated by the patents that were filed by Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Feng Zhang. Even before the ownership of patents are finalized, the institutions behind CRISPR have wasted no time capitalizing the market by entering into a series of license agreement with commercial enterprises for the applications (Contreras JL et al, 2017) . Read More https://goo.gl/GmIf5E

Monday, 20 February 2017

Alzheimer's Breakthrough: Deciphering how it build up in brain so fast

Nearly 44 million people have Alzheimer’s or a related dementia and every 66 seconds in the US develops Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s or dementia, a chronic impairment of brain functions marked mainly by memory problems and behavioral changes with a huge impact on patients and families.

Many multinational pharmaceutical companies have their drug candidates in clinical trials raising hopes that an effective treatment could be finally within reach. However, several decades of research, and hundreds of failed Alzheimer’s disease trials, including recent failure of Eli Lilly’s solanezumab, we still know very little about this disease and it has no cure.
Now, a team of researchers at Cambridge University could be one step closer to a cure for Alzheimer's after discovering how a key process that triggers the disease takes place.
The signature hallmark of the disease - the most common form of dementia - is the build-up of protein plaques in the brain.

Scientists believe they have identified the mechanism by which these plaques accumulate.
But the real breakthrough is that they believe they can show it is possible to control this process - raising hopes of ultimately stopping it altogether.

The central dogma of our life revolves around the ability of DNA to replicate, transcribe and translate. But all of three needs supporting machineries. This has been the basis of almost all the research. There are proteins that could replicate without the help of additional machineries, such as the small, disease-causing protein fibers, fibrils that are involved in neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

The basic idea that was proposed was:

These fibrils, known as amyloids, become intertwined and entangled with each other, causing the so-called 'plaques' that are found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. Spontaneous formation of the first amyloid fibrils is very slow and takes several years which could explain why Alzheimer's is usually a disease that affects people in their old age. However, once the first fibrils are formed, they begin to replicate and spread much more rapidly by themselves, making the disease very difficult to control.
Despite its importance, the fundamental mechanism of how protein fibrils can self-replicate without any additional machinery is not well understood.
In a study published in the journal Nature Physics, a team led by researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Cambridge used a combination of computer simulations and laboratory experiments to identify the necessary requirements for the self-replication of protein fibrils.
The replication of fibrils was controlled by a common physical mechanism:  the build-up of healthy proteins on the surface of existing fibrils.
The researchers used a molecule known as amyloid-beta, which forms the main component of the amyloid plaques found in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. They found a relationship between the amount of healthy proteins that are deposited onto the existing fibrils and the rate of the fibril self-replication. In other words, the greater the build-up of proteins on the fibril, the faster it self-replicates.
They also showed, as a proof of principle, that by changing how the healthy proteins interact with the surface of fibrils, it is possible to control the fibril self-replication.
One of the unfilled goals in nanotechnology is achieving efficient self-replication in the manufacturing of Nano-materials. The idea of self-replicating fibrils makes nanotechnology a more interesting field. Andela ล aric, Ph.D., the study’s first author argued that “If we're able to learn the design rules from this process, we may be able to achieve this goal”.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Physics.

Wednesday, 15 February 2017

Patent Proofreading for Patents


Patent Proofreading



Proofreading is an important step for identifying errors that can lead to office actions or rejection of patent applications. Our team performs compromised patent proofreading by using a combination of electronic and manual proof reading processes. Our proofreaders deliver high quality results by following specific standardized guidelines for checking grammar, spellings, formatting, antecedent basis, claim dependency, and claims/drawing consistency.

Read more   https://goo.gl/xQrP8E