Source: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr01611.html
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 10:25:23
Document Index: 233627653

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 2', 'Application No. 532', 'Application No. 559', 'Application No. 003', 'Application No. 862', 'Application No. 954', 'Application No. 003', 'Application No. 003', 'Application No. 291', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 583', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 583', 'Application No. 2']

MOPOP - Chapter 17 - Canadian Intellectual Property Office
MOPOP - Chapter 17
Biotechnology and Medicinal Inventions
17.01 Scope of this Chapter – March 2016
17.02 Living matter – March 2016
17.02.01 Higher and lower life forms – March 2016
17.02.02 Organs and tissues – March 2016
17.02.03 Processes to produce life forms – March 2016
17.02.03a* (formerly 17.02.03) Medical and surgical methods – January 2009
17.02.04 Bioinformatics – January 2009
17.03 Utility – January 2009
17.03.01 Establishing utility
17.03.02 Sound prediction
17.03.02a Factual basis
17.03.02b Sound line of reasoning
17.03.02c Proper support
17.03.03 Relevant date
17.03.04 Office actions relating to utility
17.04 Sufficiency – January 2009
17.05 Nucleic acids and proteins – March 2016
17.05.01 Defining by structure
17.05.02 Defining by functional limitation
17.05.03 Nucleic acid and amino acid terminology
17.05.04 Hybridizing nucleic acids
17.05.05 Sequence alignment methods
17.05.06 Considerations respecting obviousness
17.05.07 Sequence listings
17.05.07a Requirements for a sequence listing
17.05.07b The PCT sequence listing standard
17.05.07c Correction of a sequence listing
17.05.07d Identification of a sequence listing
17.05.07e Variable symbols in a sequence listing
17.06 Deposits of biological materials – March 2016
17.06.01 Considerations respecting sufficiency of disclosure
17.06.02 Considerations respecting anticipation
17.07 Antibodies - January 2017
17.07.01 Polyclonal antibodies – January 2017
17.07.02 Monoclonal antibodies – January 2017
17.07.02a Sufficiency of the disclosure
17.07.02b Other patentability requirements
17.07.02c Examples
17.07.03 Humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies – January 2017
17.07.04 Fully human monoclonal antibodies – January 2017
17.07.05 Antibodies and utility – January 2017
17.07.06* (formerly 17.07.02a) Provisos and utility – January 2009
17.07.07* (formerly 17.07.05) Scope of claims – January 2009
17.07.07a* (formerly 17.07.05a) Recourse to the description 17.08 This section has intentionally been left blank 17.09 This section has intentionally been left blank
17.10 Synergistic chemical combinations – March 2016
17.11 Reach-through claims – March 2016
Appendix 1 Deposits of biological material – March 2016 Appendix 2 Steps for obtaining samples of biological materials – March 2016 Endnotes for Chapter 17 17.01
Scope of this Chapter – March 2016
This chapter provides guidance on Office practice particularly as it pertains to patent applications concerning inventions residing in the diverse field of "biotechnology", as well as "medicinal inventions". The field of biotechnology can be thought of as encompassing "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use"Endnotes 1. Medicinal inventions, by their very nature, also interact with biological systems and encompass chemical compounds or compositions (and the preparation thereof) relating to or having therapeutic properties. It is important to note that although these descriptions offer a convenient means to label an invention, an invention may simultaneously exist in more than one field of technology.
In reading this chapter, it should be borne in mind that its purpose is to clarify, through elaboration, the application of the more generic teachings of other chapters to the examination of particular subject-matter common to biotechnology and medicinal inventions.
Nothing in this chapter should be interpreted as providing exceptions to any practice of general applicability set out in any other chapter.
Living matter – March 2016
The following subsections provide guidance for determining whether claims featuring living matter define statutory subject-matter within the scope of section 2 of the Patent Act. section 2 requires the subject-matter of an invention to fall within one of the categories of invention, i.e., an art, process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or an improvement in one of the preceding categories [see Chapter 12 of this manual].
Higher and lower life forms – March 2016
For the purposes of section 2 of the Patent Act, life forms have in view of the jurisprudenceEndnotes 1 been divided into lower life forms (statutory) and higher life forms (non-statutory), with the distinction being, in general, whether the life form is unicellular (lower) or multicellular (higher). Lower life forms are generally deemed to fall within the scope of section 2 as being either "manufactures" or "compositions of matter" since they can be produced en masse (bearing similarity to how chemical compounds are prepared) and formed in such large numbers that any measurable quantity will possess uniform properties and characteristicsEndnotes 2.
Higher life forms do not fall within the scope of section 2 of the Patent ActEndnotes 3. Further, the Office takes the position that animals at any stage of development are not statutory subject-matter eligible for patent, and consequently fertilized eggs and totipotent stem cellsEndnotes 4 are included in the higher life form proscription. A stem cell which is embryonic, multipotent or pluripotentEndnotes 5 is not alone capable of developing into an animal and is considered to be a lower life form. Where a claim to a cell could be reasonably understood in view of the description as encompassing within its scope a fertilized egg or totipotent stem cell, this subject-matter should be expressly excluded by proviso, otherwise the claim may be construed as including matter excluded from the scope of section 2. Note that the fact that a claimed cell could form part of a higher life form does not mean that the claim to the cell should necessarily be construed to be a claim to the higher life form. However, where, upon a purposive construction, a claim to a cell is construed to be a claim to a higher life form, the claim lacks compliance with section 2 of the Patent Act. Where a claim is construed as an isolated cell, there is no need to specify in the claim that the cell is "as found in the laboratory" or is "in isolated form"Endnotes 6.
Lower life forms include: microscopic algae; unicellular fungi (including moulds and yeasts); bacteria; protozoa; viruses; transformed cell lines; hybridomas; and embryonic, pluripotent and multipotent stem cells.
Higher life forms include: animals, plants, mushrooms, fertilized eggs and totipotent stem cells. Plant varieties that are distinct, uniform and stable may be protected under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. A plant part such as a cutting, callus, rhizome, tuber, fruit, or seed (regardless of whether the seed is coated) is also considered to be a higher life form.
A claim that is not directed to a higher life form per se but instead includes a higher life form within its scope (e.g., as a component of a composition or food product, as a use, etc.) may, depending on the essential elements as determined through a purposive construction analysis, be statutory subject-matter. For example, consider a claim to "an animal feed comprising X". Where the claim is construed as the use of X for animal feed, the claim will likely be statutory regardless of whether X is a higher life form. When construed to be X or a product comprising X, the claim will be non-statutory if X is a higher life form. In cases where X is a higher life form that has been processed by significant chemical or physical modification, the claim may be construed as a manufacture within the definition of invention provided in section 2 of the Patent Act. Note that a statutory method or process of producing a non-statutory higher life form will not change the determination that the life form itself is non-statutory.
In an application for patent, the inventors identify the problem to be solved as a need to provide a plant that is resistant to herbicide Q. The specification discloses a new recombinant plant and propagation material thereof produced by a process involving the transformation of a plant cell with an expression vector comprising a bacterial nucleic acid from S. hygroscopicus (SEQ ID NO:1) that confers resistance to herbicide Q. Claims:
A plant transformed with an expression vector comprising the nucleic acid molecule depicted in SEQ ID NO:1.
A plant cell comprising the nucleic acid molecule depicted in SEQ ID NO:1.
The plant cell of claim 2, wherein the cell is in a plant.
A plant propagation material comprising the plant cell of claim 2.
A seed comprising the nucleic acid molecule depicted in SEQ ID NO:1.
An artificial seed comprising:
embryonic plant tissue comprising the nucleic acid molecule depicted in SEQ ID NO:1; and
an alginate layer that encapsulates the embryonic plant tissue.
A bacterial host cell transformed with an expression vector comprising the nucleic acid molecule depicted in SEQ ID NO:1.
Analysis: Claims 2 and 7 are each construed to be directed to statutory subject-matter within the scope of section 2 of the Patent Act. In contrast, the subject-matter defined by each of claims 1 and 3-6 is non-statutory because each claim is construed to be directed to a higher life form, which lies outside the definition of "invention" as defined in section 2 of the Patent Act. More specifically, claim 1 is construed to be directed to a plant and claims 4-6 are construed to include seeds. Although the preamble of claim 3 defines a cell, it is important to note that the claim specifies the cell is in a plant. Thus, the claim is construed to be directed to an entire plant.
An application describes a novel transgenic pig that produces odourless manure due to the introduction and expression of a transgene (SEQ ID NO:2) in its genome.
A fertilized porcine ovum transfected with DNA having the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.
A cell line consisting of cells transfected with DNA comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.
A transgenic pig comprising cells as defined in claim 2.
Use of the pig of claim 3 for producing odourless manure. Analysis: Claims 1 and 3 are non-statutory. Claim 1 is construed as a fertilized ovum, which has the inherent ability to develop into an animal, while claim 3 is construed as a higher life form. Consequently, the subject-matter of both claims is non-statutory. In contrast, claims 2 and 4 are statutory. Claim 2 is construed as a composition of matter and claim 4 defines a statutory "art" when construed to be the use of the pig and not the pig itself. 17.02.02
Organs and tissues – March 2016
Organs and tissues (whether of plant or animal origin) are generally not considered to be manufactures or compositions of matter for the purposes of section 2 of the Patent Act. Organs and tissues are in general created by complex processes, elements of which require no human intervention, and do not consist of ingredients or substances that have been combined or mixed together. In view of this, the Office considers that a genetically-modified organ or tissue is not statutory subject-matter.
Artificial organ-like or tissue-like structures that are distinct from true tissues and organs and that have been generated by human intervention through the combination of various cellular and/or inert components may be considered, on a case-by-case basis, to be manufactures or compositions of matter within the scope of section 2 of the Patent ActEndnotes 7. For example, functional and anatomical differences may be indicators that serve to distinguish an organ-like or tissue-like structure from a true organ or tissue.
Processes to produce life forms – March 2016
The patentability of a method or process is independent of whether or not the product of the method or process is statutory. Processes to produce higher life forms, organs or tissues are not, therefore, defective on the grounds that they produce non-statutory products. An especially important consideration is the degree of human intervention embodied in the claimed process. A process which occurs essentially according to nature, with no significant human intervention, is not patentableEndnotes 8. Thus, for example, a claim construed to be directed to a process for producing a plant solely by traditional cross-breeding techniques is not patentable (even where one of the cross-bred plants is transgenic or otherwise modified). A process that is a result of both human intervention and the laws of nature, however, is patent-eligible subject-matter where at least one step of human intervention is an essential element of the claim. Processes that are considered to include significant human intervention include: processes to produce a lower life form, processes to produce a higher life form (if more than traditional breeding techniques), processes to produce an organ or a tissue through genetic transformation; processes for the in vitro culturing or manipulation of cells; processes to separate cells; and processes to generate mutants using a chemical or physical agent.
An application discloses a need for a new insect-resistant cotton plant. The description discloses a process for producing an insect-resistant transgenic plant, which requires the transformation of plant cells with a Bt toxin gene from a bacterium. Although transformation techniques were part of the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art, it was not well known that insect resistance in cotton could be conferred by transforming plant cells with a Bt toxin gene. Claims:
A process to produce an insect resistant cotton plant, comprising:
transforming a plant cell with an expression vector carrying a nucleic acid sequence encoding a Bt toxin gene;
generating a transgenic parent plant from said transformed cell;
crossing the plant of step b) with a plant of cotton variety B;
selecting progeny of said cross that have insect resistance; and
backcrossing the selected progeny with the transgenic parent plant.
A transgenic plant produced by the process of claim 1.
Analysis: The problem to be solved by the invention is determined to be a need to produce a new insect-resistant cotton plant. In this case, the solution is a process that relies on the transformation of a plant cell with a Bt toxin gene to generate a transgenic plant, which is followed by steps of traditional breeding that ultimately produce an insect resistant plant. Given that steps a) through e) provide the identified solution, these steps are all considered essential elements of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 defines statutory subject-matter since step a), which involves significant human invention, is an essential element of the claim. The fact that the process yields a non-statutory product (a plant) has no effect on the patentability of the process. It should be emphasized that a proper assessment for patentability must be based on a purposive construction of the claim and not simply on a literal interpretation of the claim. For example, consider a different scenario in which it was common general knowledge that insect-resistant cotton plants are produced by transforming plant cells with a Bt toxin gene. In this scenario, the inventor discovered that the existing process, which uses transgenic Bt toxin plants, could be improved by using cotton variety B in crossbreeding. Thus, given that the person skilled in the art would recognize that transforming a cotton plant with a Bt toxin gene represents a commonly known solution to a commonly known problem, the problem would instead be viewed as a need to improve the process for producing insect-resistant cotton plants. In this case, the solution is based on the use of variety B in the breeding process, as represented by steps c) to e) of the claim. Given that the essential elements of the claim are limited to steps of traditional breeding [steps c) to e)], the claim would not define a statutory invention as defined in section 2 of the Patent Act.
Claim 2 is non-statutory. The subject-matter of the claim defines a higher life form and no degree of human intervention in its production can change the determination that it falls outside the definition of invention in section 2 of the Patent Act [see 17.02.01].
The description discloses a need for biological systems that can be used to screen cancer therapeutics. The description discloses a novel and inventive process for producing a skin-equivalent that is useful for screening potential anti-melanoma drugs.
A process for producing a skin-equivalent, comprising:
providing a perforated biocompatible membrane;
seeding said membrane with epithelial cells; and cultivating said cells thereon in vitro.
A skin-equivalent produced by the process of claim 1. Analysis: Given that the process of claim 1 requires significant human intervention, and the end result of the process, the skin equivalent (claim 2), is functionally and anatomically distinct from natural skin [see 17.02.02], the subject-matter of these claims is not excluded from the scope of section 2 of the Patent Act. Therefore, the claims are statutory. Example 3:
An application discloses a need for a sheep breed exhibiting the desirable trait of decreased wool fibre diameter and a need for an improved breeding method to produce such sheep. The inventors screened sheep for a genetic polymorphism and disclosed that a genetic marker (BAA81) on chromosome 11 correlated to the desired trait. Marker assisted selection was performed to identify sheep having the marker. In brief, DNA primers specific to the region surrounding the BAA81 marker were created, the primers were mixed with genomic DNA isolated from a sheep and PCR was performed. Sheep selected by this process were mated to produce progeny that exhibited significantly decreased fibre diameter compared to sheep lacking the marker. Claim:
A method for producing sheep having decreased wool fibre diameter comprising:
performing a marker assisted selection by identifying molecular marker BAA81 in chromosome 11;
selecting a ram and ewe homozygous for BAA81; and
mating to produce sheep having decreased wool fibre diameter.
Analysis: It is clear that identification of the BAA81 region on chromosome 11 was not part of the common general knowledge. Recognizing that the problem to be solved was to produce sheep that have decreased wool fibre diameter, the inventors solved the problem using an improved breeding method that relied on marker assisted selection to identify the BAA81 polymorphism (step a) and selective breeding of only those sheep having the marker (steps b and c). Hence, in this case, all the steps of the claimed method are essential to solving the problem. The claim defines statutory subject-matter within the scope of section 2 of the Patent Act since the method relies on significant human intervention (step a) and is not construed as being limited to steps of traditional breeding.
17.02.03a* (formerly 17.02.03)
Medical and surgical methods – January 2009
A method which provides a practical therapeutic benefit to a subject, even if this is not its primary or intended purpose, is considered to be a method of medical treatment and is therefore not patentableEndnotes 9. By way of examples, surgical, medical, dental and physiotherapeutic methods of treatment are non-statutory matter.
To be considered a method of medical treatment, the method should cure, prevent or ameliorate an ailment or pathological condition, or treat a physical abnormality or deformity such as by physiotherapy or surgery. Certain natural conditions such as ageing, pregnancy, baldness and wrinkles are not considered to be pathological, and methods to treat such conditions are therefore not proscribed.
Methods that involve performing surgery on the human or animal body are excluded, whether the effect of the surgery is therapeutic or not. Methods that involve the excision of tissue, organ, or tumour samples from the body are considered to be forms of surgery, and are excluded regardless of their reproducibility. The removal of fluids from the body such as by needle or cannula is not of itself surgeryEndnotes 10. A method to remove fluids may nevertheless be proscribed if it otherwise involves surgery, such as in the placement of a cannula or stent in the body,Endnotes 11 or if it lacks utility, e.g. for not being reproducible.
Claims which do not involve a step of surgery or provide a practical therapeutic benefit do not form part of the method of surgery or medical treatment exclusionEndnotes 12. Thus, certain methods of diagnosing a disease or medical condition, whether practised in vitro or in vivo,Endnotes 13 of treating an animal solely to derive an economic benefit,Endnotes 14 or for achieving a cosmetic result may be patentable.
As mentioned in subsection 11.10.02, use claims are permitted but are scrutinized closely to ensure they do not equate to a medical or surgical method, for example by the inclusion of a medical or surgical step.
Similarly, a claim which recites a dosage regime, or a prescribed dosage amount, may be directed to a method of medical treatment since dosage regimes and prescribed dosage amounts fall within the purview of a medical professionalEndnotes 15. However, dosage forms, pharmaceutical packages or kits, which may physically embody a dosage regime or prescribed dosage amount, are considered patentable subject matterEndnotes 16.
The removal of the medical aspect of a claim may render it acceptable. Inclusion of terms such as "cosmetic", "diagnostic" or "non-medical" in a claim may be taken as disclaimers to medical methods provided the description contains adequate support for such terminology and provided the claim can reasonably be understood to be directed to a non-medical method the results of which cannot reasonably be said to produce a practical therapeutic effect.
A method of preventing cervical cancer in a human subject, comprising administering a human papilloma virus peptide defined by SEQ ID NO: 1 to said subject.
Analysis: non-statutory, since the method is self-evidently a method of medical treatment.
A method of producing antibodies specific for the human papilloma virus peptide defined by SEQ ID NO: 1, comprising administering said peptide to a rodent.
Analysis: statutory, since rodents are not susceptible to human papilloma virus and do not derive any therapeutic benefit from the administration of the peptide.
A method of producing tenderized meat, comprising:
injecting an animal with a proteolytic composition; and
slaughtering said animal after a period of time sufficient to allow for tenderization of the meat of said animal.
Analysis: statutory, since the animals do not obtain any therapeutic benefit from the method, and the method has clear industrial applicability.
A method for detecting and localizing a breast tumour, without medically treating said tumour, which method comprises the following steps:
injecting a subject with an antibody X which has been labelled with a diagnostically effective amount of a radioactive isotope;
allowing said labelled antibody to localize at the site of the breast tumour; and
detecting the emission of radioactivity from said radioactive isotope thereby localizing the site of the breast tumour in said subject.
Analysis: Statutory because, in this case, there is a distinction between the concentration of the radioisotope-labelled antibody which is used for diagnosis and that which would provide a therapeutic effect. The proviso "without medically treating said tumour" therefore qualifies the amount of antibody used and restricts it to non- therapeutic concentrationsEndnotes 17.
A method of analyzing a sample of breast tissue to diagnose breast cancer in a subject, comprising the following steps:
homogenizing said sample in extraction buffer to yield soluble and insoluble fractions;
separating the soluble fraction from the insoluble fraction; reacting the soluble fraction with [novel] antibody X; and detecting specific binding of antibody X with antigen Y
wherein specific binding of antibody X to antigen Y indicates the presence of breast cancer.
Analysis: Statutory, since the method is clearly a diagnostic method and has been drafted in such a manner that any acts required to obtain the necessary sample of breast tissue do not form part of the claimed invention.
A method of detecting breast cancer in a subject comprising the following steps:
obtaining a sample of breast tissue from a subject by [novel] needle biopsy conducted under the virtual guidance of a system which generates a three-dimensional image of a putative breast tumour which has been localized in vivo by immuno-radiography with an antibody reactive with antigen Y; and
detecting the presence of antigen Y in said sample,
wherein the presence of antigen Y at an amount exceeding 125 ng/g of tissue indicates the presence of breast cancer.
Analysis: non-statutory, since step (i) involves a step (a needle biopsy) which equates to surgery.
A method of screening for a potential drug for [human] disease X, comprising:
administering a plurality of test compounds to [novel] mice which have been genetically engineered by insertion of human gene Y to mimic disease X;
evaluating the severity of disease progression in said mice in the presence and absence of each of the compounds; and
selecting compounds which slow disease progression as potentials for treating disease X.
Analysis: statutory, since a method wherein a disease is induced in an otherwise healthy subject is not a method of medical treatment, even if the so-induced disease is subsequently treated.
Bioinformatics – January 2009 Biomolecules are chemical compounds, and claims to nucleic acids, polypeptides, proteins and peptides are therefore directed to statutory matter. Certain biomolecules, further, express information through their primary structure (i.e. their sequence).
The three-dimensional structure of a biomolecule is often of importance in understanding its biological activity and behavior. A claim to a biomolecule, defining the molecule in terms of its atomic coordinates, is statutory. In contrast, a claim to the three-dimensional atomic coordinates that represent the shape of the biomolecule in space is not statutory. The coordinates themselves are simply information, which is non-statutory.
Note that the exclusion from patentability of information does not depend on whether or not the information has been recorded on a carrier, nor on the nature of the carrier.
A computer model of a biomolecule which relies on the structural information of the biomolecule is not patentable, since the model itself equates to a graphical presentation of the underlying information. This exclusion extends to include generic computer systems and/or programs that have merely been configured to generate the model.
Computer models of biomolecules can be used in, for example, in silico screening methods. The mere presence of a computer model of a biomolecule in a method does not of itself render the method unpatentable.
A polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO: 1. (statutory)
A protein comprising the atomic coordinates set out in figure 1. (statutory)
A computer readable medium having recorded thereon the sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1. (non-statutory)
Atomic coordinates of protein X, said coordinates depicted in figure 1. (non-statutory)
A method of obtaining inhibitors of protein X, comprising the steps of:
generating a three-dimensional computer model of protein X using the atomic coordinates depicted in figure 1;
identifying the binding site of protein X using said model; and
electronically screening a library of compounds with defined spatial coordinates in order to identify compounds which are structurally complementary to the binding site of protein X; and
preparing complementary compounds as inhibitors of protein X. (statutory)
Utility – January 2009
Presuming that the claims define statutory subject-matter, section 2 of the Patent Act also requires that the matter of an invention be useful. As noted in Consolboard v MacMillan Bloedel, a lack of utility exists if "the invention will not work, either in the sense that it will not operate at all or, more broadly, that it will not do what the specification promises that it will do"Endnotes 1. Note that the Supreme Court indicates that the broader meaning of utility is "what the specification promises" the invention will do. An invention must serve to carry out some useful objective and "cannot be a mere laboratory curiosity whose only claim to utility is as a starting material for further research"Endnotes 2.
The Patent Appeal Board has similarly noted that, in order to be useful in the sense required by the Patent Act, an invention must be controllable and reproducible such that the objectives of the invention are predictably achievedEndnotes 3.
Although an invention need only have one use in order to be patentable, where several uses are promised each must be properly established. For example, if a composition is promised to be useful as a drug in treating a specific disease, it must be established that it is useful in the therapy of that disease. If, however, it is promised to be useful as a drug for treating many diseases, its utility in treating all the diseases must be established in order for the specification to comply with subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act [see 17.04].
To clarify the foregoing, a promised use is one which the inventors assert their invention does have. Comments in the description that are clearly speculative in nature (relating, e.g., to what the inventors believe but do not know, to uses the invention might have, etc.) are not promises of utility.
An inventor unexpectedly discovers that novel compound X is useful in treating disease Y (a disease of the kidneys), and files an application for this invention. The inventor has not yet discovered the mode of action of their drug, but rather has provided exemplary data to support the use.
In the description, the inventor suggests that "compound X may also be useful in treating other diseases of the kidneys". Nothing in the description supports that the compound has any utility other than in treating disease Y.
Analysis: The compound can be claimed on the basis of its unexpected utility. The statement in the description suggesting other possible utilities is clearly not an assertion by the inventor that the compound will treat other diseases of the kidneys, and does not cause any confusion on that point. No objection should be raised to the description on that point.
In the description, the inventor states that "compound X is also useful in treating other diseases of the kidneys such as A, B and C".
Analysis: The statement in the description is a clear assertion that compound X will treat the other diseases A, B and C. Unless the inventor is in a position to establish that it will in fact do so, the statement must be viewed as not correct and the description should be objected to under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. This is so whether the use of the compound to treat those diseases is claimed or not. If a claim is made to the use, the claim should also be objected to for being directed to subject-matter lacking in utility.
The Supreme Court noted in Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. that utility is an essential part of the definition of an invention (Patent Act, s.2). A policy of patent first and litigate later unfairly puts the onus of proof on the attackers to prove invalidity, without the patent owner's ever being put in a position to establish validity. Unless the inventor is in a position to establish utility as of the time the patent is applied for, on the basis of either demonstration or sound prediction, the Commissioner "by law" is required to refuse the patent (Patent Act, s. 40)Endnotes 4.
Following 17.03, it is the invention's utility for achieving the objects indicated in the specification that the inventors must be in a position to establish.
Demonstrated utility pertains to embodiments of the invention that have been shown to actually work for the ends promised by the inventors. Utility can be demonstrated, for example, via working examples.
Soundly predicted utility pertains to embodiments of the invention which have not themselves been demonstrated to work for the ends promised by the inventors, but for which an appropriate basis exists upon which this utility can be predicted.
In order for a prediction to be deemed to be "sound", it must meet the test set out in Apotex,Endnotes 5 namely that there must be:
an articulable and "sound" line of reasoning from which the desired result can be inferred from the factual basis; and
proper disclosure.
It is important to keep in mind that a "sound prediction" does not imply certainty. It is clear from the very term "prediction" that this is so. At the same time, the Supreme
Court was clear in Apotex that a patent monopoly is not to be granted in return for mere speculation. Consequently, in assessing whether or not utility has been established via sound prediction the emphasis is appropriately placed on "sound", and the question is whether a prediction is "sound" or "speculative".
17.03.02a
Evaluating what will be a sufficient factual basis for a sound prediction must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and will depend on such factors as:
the scope of the claims;
the nature of the invention and its predictability; and
the extent to which the applicant has explored the area claimed, for example by conducting experiments which provide factual support for the utility asserted.
It is clear from Apotex that, while the factual basis may be provided by way of examples, there is no requirement that this be so.
As was noted in the case of Pfizer v Apotex, however, "[u]tility and sound prediction are questions of fact and must obviously be supported [...]"Endnotes 6. Consequently, it seems clear that the term "factual" cannot be diluted to mean simple, unsubstantiated statements in the description promising that the invention will work.
As regards "prophetic examples", while these are not per se objectionable they are of limited value in providing support. A prophetic example is necessarily a statement of what might be, rather than what is, and is therefore not "factual".
17.03.02b
Sound line of reasoning
In order to take a prediction from the realm of speculation and render it "sound", the applicant must be able to provide to the person skilled in the art an explanation of how it is that, on the basis of whatever facts have been identified, of the state of the art, and of whatever the inventors have brought to light in their researches, the entire matter of the claimed invention can be expected to provide the promised utility. Since a sound line of reasoning is directed to a person skilled in the art, those elements of the sound line of reasoning that would be self-evident to the person skilled in the art in view of their common general knowledge do not need to be explicitly disclosed in the application.
Although no inventor is required to understand why their invention works, this does not dilute the requirements for a sound prediction. If an inventor cannot articulate a line of reasoning to soundly connect their factual support (e.g. their examples) to the remaining matter of their claims, they are not entitled to the full breadth of their claims.
It is not possible to provide exhaustive guidance on the types of reasoning which may be found to be "sound". This assessment depends on too many variables, and a factual basis which in one case may lead to a sound prediction may, in another case, be insufficient.
Knowledge of mechanisms of action and structure-activity relationships, however, are certainly compelling grounds upon which to base predictions. Similarly, in fields where in vitro tests are known to be predictive of in vivo activity, the in vitro tests could be sufficient for a sound prediction.
Where functional limitations appear in claims or are relied upon as the basis of a sound prediction, reference should be made to subsection 17.07.07.
17.03.02c
The requirement for proper disclosure means that the person skilled in the art has to, through the specification interpreted in view of their common general knowledge, be provided with sufficient information to understand the basis of the sound prediction and to practise the entire scope of the claimed inventionEndnotes 7.
Note that in making a proper disclosure, it is not necessary for the factual basis to be provided by way of examples. It is only necessary that the person skilled in the art would appreciate that the teachings of the description describe the necessary basis sufficiently, and that it is clear that the basis is factual. In certain cases, a reference to external, publicly-available data could suffice. Where the necessary factual basis is not publicly available as of the filing date it must be found within the description. Determining whether or not the factual basis provided is sufficient must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in view of factors such as how developed the specific field is, how predictable inventions in that field are and the scope of the claims.
The date at which the applicant must be in a position to establish the utility of their invention is the filing dateEndnotes 8. Consequently, the factual basis upon which either the demonstration or sound prediction is based must necessarily exist as of the filing date. Similarly, if a sound prediction is to be relied upon, the articulable and sound line of reasoning referred to in 17.03.02 must also exist as of the filing date.
Where an applicant is claiming priority, this claim is valid only insofar as the document or documents upon which it is based are sufficient to establish the utility of the invention.
Although an applicant is entitled to include in the application as filed matter not present in the priority document(s), where this matter is necessary to establish the utility of any embodiments of the invention those embodiments do not benefit from the priority date.
Office actions relating to utility
When an examiner has reason to believe that an applicant is not in a position to establish the utility of their invention, when the manner whereby they have attempted to establish utility is defective or when there is evidence of inutility an objection will be raised. The nature of the objection will depend on the specific defect, and should serve to communicate the severity of the perceived deficiency.
If the perceived defect in a claim is one of scope (i.e. the invention has been claimed more broadly than the description appears to support, such that the entire claimed matter does not appear to have the promised utility), an objection can be presented under section 84 of the Patent Rules on the grounds of a lack of full support.
Such an objection could be made, for example, because an element of the invention (an "essential" element) has not been defined in the claim.
Similarly, where it does not appear that a sound prediction exists upon which the utility of the entire scope of the claim can be predicated, such that the scope of the claim consequently does not appear to be "fully supported" by the description, a rule 84 objection is appropriate.
Objections under rule 84 suggest that the examiner views the defect in the claim as one of scope, and that it is remediable through amendment. If an applicant declines to amend, however, they are effectively asserting that the entire scope of the claim is their invention and in a subsequent report an objection to lack of utility (under section 2 of the Patent Act) and lack of sufficiency of disclosure (under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act) could be raised.
Section 2 of the Patent Act requires that an invention be useful. Where an examiner has reason to believe that the invention as claimed lacks utility, and the matter is not of the nature described above in relation to rule 84, a section 2 objection is raised.
In Monsanto Co v Commissioner of Patents, it was noted that inutility should only be alleged on the basis of evidence of inutility or of a reasoned argument as to why the applicant's sound prediction of utility is defective Endnotes 9. An objection contending an applicant's sound prediction is flawed should be supported by setting out sufficient facts and reasoning to rebut the applicant's contention. The applicant must be given a sufficiently clear argument by the examiner that they are able to respond in an informed manner to those concerns raised by the examiner.
If the perceived defect is that the specification is, in view of the criteria set out in Apotex, insufficient to support a sound prediction, this should be clearly communicated. Where the defect is of the nature that no factual basis appears to exist or that no line of reasoning appears to exist (whether by explicit disclosure or in view of the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art), the "reasoned argument" can be simply identifying these apparent omissions. In such cases, the objection to the claims under section 2 of the Patent Act should be accompanied by an objection to the description under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act.
Conversely, even where an applicant has demonstrated and/or soundly predicted the utility of their invention, it may be the case that some basis exists (a factual basis such as data in the prior art, contravention of a law of science etc.) to contend inutility in regard to some embodiment of the invention. When such a basis can be identified, even as regards only one embodiment of a broad claim, the whole claim is objected to on the ground of a lack of utility.
It should be noted that evidence of inutility can be provided at any time. There is no requirement that such evidence existed as of the application's claim date.
1. The description as filed includes a statement indicating that proteins having 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 are useful as anti-cancer compounds in humans. No other utilities are disclosed. The sequence in SEQ ID NO: 1 is that of a novel protein bearing only a slight structural similarity (< 20%) to a known protein, and the protein's functional activity is not disclosed. No test data of any kind is included in the description.
A protein comprising the amino acid sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO: 1.
A protein which has at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1.
A pharmaceutical composition comprising a protein as defined in claim 1 or 2 for use as an anti-cancer drug.
Analysis: The description does not contain any factual basis to support a sound prediction that the protein having the sequence provided in SEQ ID NO: 1 is useful as an anti-cancer compound. Given that the protein has only a slight structural similarity to a known protein, extrinsic data does not seem to exist. Neither has any data supporting the promised utility been provided in the description. Consequently, the description appears to be insufficient and is objected to under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. Similarly, as it is not clear that the inventor is in a position to establish the utility of their invention for the promised purpose, the claims are objected to under section 2 of the Patent Act. It is up to the applicant to attempt to explain how they have met the utility requirement identified in Apotex.
2. The description as filed discloses an outer membrane protein [SEQ ID NO: 1] from a bacterium which is involved in a human disease X. The description provides pre-clinical data showing that the protein generates a protective immune response when used in a monkey model of disease X. It is understood from the description that the data from the monkey model is predictive of success in humans in view of the model's demonstrated success in predicting the activity of similar known antigens.
A protein comprising the sequence defined by SEQ ID NO: 1.
A vaccine for use in protecting a human subject from disease X, comprising a protein having the sequence defined by SEQ ID NO: 1 and an adjuvant therefore.
Analysis: The description provides data demonstrating the activity of the protein for the promised purpose in monkeys. Extrinsic data, identified in the description, exists to support the utility of the monkey model for predicting human activity of similar antigens. A person skilled in the art would appreciate that this factual basis, properly disclosed in the description, is sufficient to allow the utility of the protein of claim 1 to be soundly predicted.
Sufficiency of the description – January 2009
Closely related to the question of utility is that of sufficiency. subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act requires (inter alia) that the description "correctly and fully describe the invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor". Thorson P. summarized the requirements for sufficient specification in Minerals Separation North American Corp v Noranda Mines, Ltd, and later described this "onus of disclosure" as "a heavy and exacting one". Endnotes 1
The description must be correct; this means that it must be both clear and accurate. It must be free from avoidable obscurity or ambiguity and must be as simple and distinct as the difficulty of description permits. It must not contain erroneous or misleading statements calculated to deceive or mislead the persons to whom the specification is addressed and render it difficult for them without trial and experiment to comprehend in what manner the invention is to be performed. It must not, for example, direct the use of alternative methods of putting it into effect if only one is practicable, even if persons skilled in the art would be likely to choose the practicable method. The description of the invention must also be full; this means that its ambit must be defined, for nothing that has not been described may be validly claimed. Endnotes 2
As was noted in section 17.03, the description must contain sufficient information to support a sound prediction of the utility of the invention. Further, it must set out the invention such that a person skilled in the art can practice it having reference only to the description itself and to common general knowledge.
In Consolboard, Dickson J. noted that "the inventor must, in return for the grant of a patent, give to the public an adequate description of the invention with sufficiently complete and accurate details as will enable a workman, skilled in the art to which the invention relates, to construct or use that invention when the period of the monopoly has expired". Endnotes 3 The description must be able to answer the questions "What is your invention?: How does it work?" Endnotes 4 such that "when the period of the monopoly has expired the public will be able, having only the specification, to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his application". Endnotes 5
A description sufficient to allow the public (in the form of a person skilled in the art) to practice the invention is said to be enabling. Since the person skilled in the art is the addressee of the description, it is not necessary for common knowledge to be comprehensively disclosed. A known assay technique does not need, for example, to be taught in full. Merely referring to this technique is sufficient for the person skilled in the art to know how to practise it.
When an examiner has reason to believe that a description is deficient for not having correctly and fully described the claimed invention, an objection is raised under subsection 27(3). This might be the case, for example, when a broad claim is supported only by its own verbatim language.
It is important to bear in mind that the specification must be sufficient to allow the full scope of the claimed invention to be practised without the need for the person skilled in the art to exercise their inventive ingenuity. If the person skilled in the art is called on to solve problems in such a manner that an inventive step would be present, the description is insufficient (and the attendant claims are unsupported).
Nucleic acids and proteins – March 2016
The following subsections relate to issues regarding nucleic acids, polynucleotides, peptides, polypeptides and proteins and the disclosure of their sequences in a sequence listing. 17.05.01
Generally a product may be defined by its structure, in terms of the process by which it is made, or in terms of its physical or chemical properties. Often the most explicit and definite manner in which to define a chemical compound is by its structure.
For a biomolecule such as a nucleic acid molecule or protein, the structure is typically represented by the nucleotide or amino acid sequence, e.g., "a polypeptide consisting of the amino acid sequence MARNDCQEGHILKFPSTWYV".
For greater clarity, the claim should be explicitly directed to a biomolecule defined by reference to a sequence listing identifier that points to the corresponding sequence in the sequence listing [see 17.05.07], e.g., "a nucleic acid consisting of the nucleotide sequence represented by SEQ ID NO:1" or "a protein comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2". A claim simply directed to a sequence listing identifier, however, may be interpreted as a claim to mere information (i.e., to the string of letters depicted in the sequence listing), which is not compliant with section 2 of the Patent Act, rather than a claim to the biomolecule itself. A claim directed to "SEQ ID NO:8", for example, would be unacceptable but a claim to "DNA encoding the protein comprising amino acids 1-260 of SEQ ID NO: 8" would be unambiguous (assuming the reference sequence is clearly defined – see below).
Note that even where a claim to a biomolecule is defined by reference to a sequence within the sequence listing it is not an assurance that the claimed biomolecule will be adequately defined by structure. For example, where a biomolecule is defined in a claim by reference to a sequence that contains a number of variable symbols such as "Xaa" or "n", the claimed subject-matter may not be defined in distinct and explicit terms and may fail to comply with subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act.
In the case of a nucleic acid molecule defined by the protein it encodes, the provision of a partial amino acid sequence of the protein is not taken as an adequate description of a nucleic acid molecule which is capable of encoding the entire proteinEndnotes 1.
Functional language is generally used to provide breadth to a claim. In certain cases, language that defines specific functional or biological activity may be used to further distinguish a claimed biomolecule from biomolecules of the prior art. Although the use of functional language does not make a claim defective per se, if it is used then the entire scope of the claim must be clear and fully supported by the description [see Chapter 9 of this manual for more information].
In general, the use of functional language in a claim is acceptable if the person skilled in the art would not need to resort to inventive ingenuity to practise the full scope of the claim. For example, consider a claim to "a plant transformation vector comprising a gene of interest; a transposon; and a marker gene positioned within the transposon, wherein the marker gene induces abnormal cellular differentiation in plant tissue". Assuming that representative marker genes are adequately supported in the description and are well known in the prior art by persons skilled in the art, it is acceptable in this case to define the marker gene in functional terms.
On the other hand, where the use of functional language requires the person skilled in the art to exert an inventive effort to practise the full scope of the claim or, likewise, the use of the language causes the scope of the claim to be overly-broad, the claim is likely defective in view of section 84 of the Patent Rules. Where the examiner determines that the description is insufficient to support the breadth of the claim, depending on the facts, a defect could be identified under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. Where knowledge of the structure of the protein or nucleic acid is needed to realize the full scope of the claim, the claim may also lack compliance with subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act if the nucleic acid or protein is not further defined by the structure that provides the functional activity.
In the case where, for example, the structure of a protein (or a nucleic acid encoding a protein) is defined in terms of a percent identity to a reference sequence, the claim should additionally specify that the protein has the same biological activity as that described in the application in order to comply with subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act– e.g., "a nucleic acid comprising a sequence that is at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 which encodes a protein having alpha-amylase activity".
An application describes a novel polypeptide depicted in the sequence listing as SEQ ID NO:2 that has xylanase activity and is shown to be particularly effective in processes for making biofuels. The description does not describe any variants of the polypeptide having xylanase activity. A search of the prior art revealed that xylanases are generally known. A search for the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2 identified prior art documents D1 and D2. D1 discloses a polypeptide having 82% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 but lacking xylanase activity while D2 discloses a xylanase having 92% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO:2.
A recombinant polypeptide having xylanase activity.
A recombinant polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:2.
Analysis: claim 1 is defective. The claimed polypeptide is defined broadly by a functional description of its activity rather than by its structural features. The description discloses with particularity only one polypeptide; this polypeptide is described as having the structural features depicted in SEQ ID NO:2 and the desired xylanase activity. Given that the claim defines more than the description supports, the claim is defective in view of section 84 of the Patent Rules. Where the examiner determines that the description is insufficient to support the breadth of the claim, depending on the facts a defect could be identified under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. The subject-matter of the claim also lacks novelty in view of D2 (in effect, the claim would be anticipated by any earlier public disclosure of a polypeptide having the desired activity). D1, on the other hand, would not be anticipatory to claim 1 since D1 does not disclose a polypeptide having the specified activity. Furthermore, if, having regard to the claim and description, it is not clear to the skilled person what is being claimed then a defect under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act may also be identified. Claim 2 is defective on multiple grounds. The polypeptide is defined in terms of its structure and, more particularly, to the minimum threshold of percent identity of the structure to the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2. In this case the claim defines more than the description supports and does not comply with section 84 of the Rules. Given that claim 2 does not define the functional activity of the polypeptide, the claim potentially encompasses polypeptides that lack xylanase activity and/or have unknown function. Identification of a defect under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act may be warranted where it is unclear whether what is being claimed has the same functional activity as the polypeptide of the application. In addition, the claim is defective for lacking novelty in view of either D1 or D2, which each disclose and enable a polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence that is "at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:2". Had claim 2 included a functional limitation to xylanase activity then D1 would not have been anticipatory.
Nucleotide or amino acid sequences referred to as being "substantially identical" to a target sequence are not adequately defined since there is no accepted convention in the art as to what is encompassed by the term "substantially" and since the scope of a claim may vary depending on what one considers to be a "substantially" identical sequence.
A nucleotide or amino acid sequence may be defined by a threshold percentage limit as compared to a target sequence – e.g., a nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence that is at least 95% identical to the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 7. If the term "homology" is used to describe the relationship between the sequence and the target then the claim is considered indefinite since the term implies an evolutionary relationship which either exists or does not existEndnotes 2. Applicants are generally permitted to replace the term "homology" with the term "identity" for greater clarity. A defect under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act may also be identified where a claim includes the term "similarity" and there is no clear definition of what the applicant considers to be similar residues. 17.05.04
Hybridizing nucleic acids Nucleic acids are often defined as sequences that hybridize to a particular target sequence under various reaction, or stringency, conditions. Given that there is no clear consensus as to what conditions are best used in a given hybridization reaction and that different reaction conditions will capture different nucleic acids, a claim may be held to be indefinite for failing to define the particular parameters to be used during the hybridization reaction and ensuing washings.
Where the target itself is solely defined as being any member of a large family of nucleic acids, e.g., a family of degenerate nucleic acids or variants encoding the same amino acid sequence (including nucleic acids defined as having less than 100% identity), the scope of a claim to a nucleic acid molecule that hybridizes to such a target becomes unclear. In such cases, the target is not limited to a single clearly-defined nucleic acid but instead encompasses a vast number of possible combinations of hybridizing and target nucleic acids.
Where a claim suggests that a nucleic acid molecule, which hybridizes to a target sequence encoding a functional polypeptide, is itself also capable of encoding a functional polypeptide, the claim may be held to be defective under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act since hybridizing nucleic acids may either not encode a polypeptide, or encode a polypeptide having a different function than that encoded by the target. For greater clarity, such claims should indicate that the nucleic acid molecule hybridizes to the complement of the target sequence.
Whenever a sequence is identified as having a certain percent identity to a reference sequence, it is necessary to define in the claim whether the percent identity is relative to the full length of the reference sequence or is a partial alignment (such as a BLAST alignmentEndnotes 3).
For the sake of clarity, alignment of the sequence over the full length of the reference sequence is greatly preferred when making the comparison.
Considerations respecting obviousness In accordance with section 28.3 of the Patent Act, an invention as claimed cannot be obvious or, equivalently, must be the result of ingenuityEndnotes 4) [see Chapter 15 of this manual for further guidance].
If given the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide, the entire class of nucleic acids encoding it can be generated through simple deduction;i.e., by using the genetic code to back-translate from the amino acid sequence. Therefore, where protein X is known in the prior art, a broad claim to "a nucleic acid encoding the amino acid sequence of protein X", for example, is considered obvious.
The opposite is also considered obvious. An amino acid sequence encoded by a known nucleic acid can be directly derived through the translation of the known coding nucleotide sequence provided the correct reading frame has been identified or is obvious.
Given that the class of nucleic acids encoding any particular polypeptide is astronomically large, the identification of a species of the class which has unexpected or advantageous properties can be inventive. Such claims should be analyzed in the context of a selection [see Chapter 15 of this manual].
An application discloses that a nucleic acid molecule (SEQ ID NO:7) is particularly advantageous for expression in plant tissue and encodes a peptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:8. Prior art document D1 discloses the amino acid sequence of peptide G, which is identical to SEQ ID NO:8, but was derived through Edman degradation. There are no indications in D1 that recombinant techniques were used nor is there an explicit disclosure of a nucleic acid molecule which encodes peptide G. Review Article D2 discusses methods and codon usage tables that may be used in order to achieve enhanced expression of heterologous genes in plant tissues.
A nucleic acid encoding the peptide identified by SEQ ID NO:8.
A nucleic acid which has been optimized for expression in plant tissue and which encodes the peptide identified by SEQ ID NO:8.
A nucleic acid comprising the sequence identified by SEQ ID NO: 7 which has been optimized for expression in plant tissue and which encodes the peptide identified by SEQ ID NO: 8.
Analysis: Although it is recognized that obviousness inquiries should follow a four-step approach,Endnotes 5 the analysis has been simplified for the purposes herein.
Claim 1 is obvious in view of D1. Firstly, the claim does not refer to any nucleic acid in particular and merely reflects the general idea of having a nucleic acid molecule which is capable of encoding the peptide; an idea that a person of skill in the art would readily appreciate in view of D1. Second, D1 provides the amino acid sequence of the peptide making it a simple matter of deduction for the person of skill in the art to generate a nucleotide sequence capable of encoding the peptide. Therefore, claim 1 fails to satisfy section 28.3 of the Patent Act in view of the teachings of D1.
Claim 2 is obvious in view of D1 in combination with D2. The claim does not refer to any nucleic acid in particular and merely reflects, albeit in a somewhat more restricted sense, the general idea of having a nucleic acid molecule which has been optimized for expression in plant tissue; an idea that a person of skill in the art would readily be able to put into practical effect by deducing an appropriate encoding sequence from D1 in view of the more specific guidance offered by D2.
Claim 3 is not obvious since neither D1 nor D2 discloses nor suggests the particular sequence referred to in the claim (SEQ ID NO:7). Given that it is disclosed that the sequence has a substantial advantage, the claim represents the selection of nucleic acids having a particular sequence from amongst the genus of all possible nucleic acids encoding the peptide and from amongst the subgenus of all possible nucleic acids employing plant optimized codons.
An application that discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence, other than one that belongs to the prior art, must contain a sequence listing. In some cases, the provision of a sequence listing may be needed to satisfy administrative requirements (e.g., sections 94 and 111 of the Patent Rules), and to "correctly and fully describe the invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor" (i.e., subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act).
The following subsections apply to applications filed on or after June 2, 2007. For applications filed prior to that date, the applicant may substitute the requirements of sections 111 to 131 of the Patent Rules as they read immediately prior to the coming into force of the current rules for the requirements of current section 111 of the Patent Rules. Similarly, the requirements of section 62 as it read immediately prior to the coming into force of the current rules may be substituted for the requirements of current section 94 of the Patent Rules.
17.05.07a
Requirements for a sequence listing In accordance with subsection 111(1) of the Patent Rules, if an application discloses "a nucleotide or amino acid sequence other than a sequence identified as forming a part of the prior art, the description shall contain, in respect of that sequence, a sequence listing in electronic form, and both the sequence listing and the electronic form shall comply with the PCT sequence listing standard".
When this is the case, the provision of the sequence listing is a requirement for completion of the application (whether or not the application is a PCT national phase application). section 94 of the Patent Rules requires that the sequence listing be provided to the Office within the later of twelve-months from filing or three months from the date of receipt of a notice requisitioning its provision. An applicant may not request the sequence listing from another application be brought forward and recorded against the application since the Office does not consider that such a request satisfies the requirements of section 94 and subsection 111(1) of the Patent Rules.
The applicant must provide any required sequence listing within "the applicable time" to avoid the payment of the fee set out in item 2 of Schedule II. For an application other than a PCT national phase application, the applicable time is 15 months from the earliest priority date or, where no priority is claimed, 15 months from the filing date. For a PCT national phase application, the applicable time is 3 months from payment of the requisite fees for national entry and provision of a copy of the application and/or a translation of the application if applicable (i.e., the requirements of subsections 58(1) and 58(2) of the Patent Rules).
When a sequence listing submitted in accordance with subsection 111(1) of the Patent Rules is of record in the Office, it is not permissible for a paper copy of the sequence listing to be of record. Applicants will be requisitioned to withdraw any paper copy of a sequence listing for which a PCT sequence listing standard-compliant electronic sequence listing has been made of record.
In accordance with subsection 111(2), if a sequence listing is added to an application originally filed without a sequence listing, "the applicant shall file a statement to the effect that the listing does not go beyond the disclosure in the application as filed".
17.05.07b
The PCT sequence listing standard The term "PCT sequence listing standard" refers to the Standard for the Presentation of Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequence Listings in International Patent Applications Under the PCT. This standard is provided in annex C of the Administrative Instructions under the PCT and is available via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) website.
As per subsection 111(3) of the Patent Rules, if an application as filed contains a sequence listing that does not comply with the PCT sequence listing standard and the applicant replaces the non-compliant sequence listing with one that does comply with that standard, the applicant shall file a statement to the effect that the replacement listing does not go beyond the disclosure in the application as filed.
17.05.07c
If a sequence listing is found to contain errors, any correction of the listing must comply with the requirements of subsection 38.2(2) of the Patent Act. That is, no new matter may be added to the specification or drawings as originally filed and any correction made to a sequence listing must be reasonably inferable from the specification or drawings as filed. Where the correct sequence could only be determined by, for example, re-sequencing a sample, the correction is not reasonably to be inferred.
17.05.07e
Variable symbols in a sequence listing
The use of the symbols "n" (or "N") and "Xaa" to define "unknown or modified" bases and amino acids, respectively, is discussed in paragraphs 10 and 18 of the PCT sequence listing standard. When these symbols are used in a sequence listing, they can represent only a single residue (nucleotide or amino acid, respectively) at a specific position in the sequence.
The Office considers that the residues represented by the symbols "n" (or "N") and "Xaa" may be defined in the "Features" section as being either present or absent, and that these symbols may also be used to define that a standard nucleotide or amino acid residue is either present or absent. Similarly, these symbols can be used, through the definitions given in the "Features" section, to represent alternate residues at a given position.
Note that since such symbols represent only a single residue, a sequence of variable length must be presented by using a sufficient number of discrete symbols to represent the maximum length of the sequence. Symbols used in such a presentation may then be qualified in the "Features" section to be either present or absent.
The foregoing discussion relates only to the manner in which the foregoing symbols may be used as a matter of nomenclature. During examination, an examiner must consider whether or not the use of such symbols contravenes the Patent Act and/or Rules, for example on the basis of clarity or support [see 17.05.01].
Deposits of biological materials – March 2016
Deposits of biological material are addressed in the Patent Act at subsections 38.1(1) and (2). Note that for the purposes of section 38.1, the term "biological material" may include bacteria, bacteriophages, cells in culture, hybridomas, filamentous fungi, yeasts, plant seeds, viruses, purified nucleic acid molecules, plasmids, and replication-defective cells.
Subsection 38.1(1) of the Patent Act provides that:
Subsection 38.1(2) of the Patent Act provides that:
Where a specification refers to a deposit, the deposit shall be considered part of the specification if it is in accordance with the regulations. Sections 103 to 110 of the Patent Rules regulate deposits of biological material. In particular, subsection 104(1) requires the deposit to be made by the applicant with an international depositary authority on or before the filing date of the application. Before the application is open to public inspection, the applicant must inform the Commissioner of the name of this authority and the accession number given to the deposit as per subsection 104(2). The description must include this information and the date of the original deposit with the authority. Further practical aspects of the Patent Rules are covered in Appendix 1 of this chapter. 17.06.01
Considerations respecting sufficiency of disclosure
Bearing in mind that a specification must both adequately describe and enable an invention in order to satisfy subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act so that "when the period of the monopoly has expired the public will be able, having only the specification, to make the same successful use of the invention as the inventor could at the time of his application",Endnotes 1 sufficiency must be considered where the specification refers to a biological deposit. The considerations respecting sufficiency of disclosure as a requirement for patentability are more fully addressed in Chapter 9 of this manual.
A deposit of biological material may be made whether or not it is necessary to enable the invention as required per subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. However, where the invention cannot be enabled in the absence of access to a biological material, the deposit is a necessary element to make the description sufficient unless the required material is publicly known and reliably available to the person skilled in the art. A biological material is considered to be reliably available if it can be obtained commercially or can be reproducibly prepared or isolated from available materials using established procedures and without undue experimentation. In the case of plant seeds, the Office considers a seed to be reliably available where it enables one to obtain, in a reproducible manner, a homogeneous population of plants that are identical to the plant of the invention.
The fact that a biological deposit has been made does not of itself mean that an invention has been adequately describedEndnotes 2. A claim to a desired product does not merit protection simply because reference is made to where the product can be found. Thus, if it is possible to define the product in clear and explicit terms, a deposit is not considered a substitute for a full and correct description of the product itself and, in view of subsection 38.1(1) of the Patent Act, would not of itself meet the requirements of subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act.
Whenever possible, it is preferable that both methods of disclosure should be usedEndnotes 3 (i.e., disclosures relating to both the deposit of biological material and a clear and explicit description of the product or process of making the product).
The specification as filed describes both a new mutant strain of bacteria, which is useful for treating gastrointestinal disorders, and a nucleic acid molecule isolated from the strain. The description includes the dates of the original deposits with the international depositary authority and the corresponding accession numbers of both the strain and plasmid comprising the nucleic acid molecule.
A Bifidobacterium sp. strain having probiotic activity for treating gastrointestinal disorders, which is deposited under ATCC-8888.
the DNA insert of the plasmid deposited under ATCC-9999; and
the DNA included in the strain of claim 1.
Analysis: claim 1 features a bacterium strain, which is partly defined by reference to its biological deposit number. In this case, recognizing that it is not always possible to describe the matter in terms of its structure and/or physical characteristics, a description of the biological deposit in the description provides a sufficient disclosure of the claimed strain and, therefore, satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act.
Claim 2 is directed to an uncharacterized nucleic acid molecule defined by reference to biological deposits containing the molecule. Given that it is possible to define the nucleic acid molecule in clear and explicit terms (e.g., by its DNA sequence) and despite the fact that the skilled person in the art may be able to isolate the molecule from the deposit and characterize it (e.g., determine its sequence), the mere inclusion of the deposit information in the specification is not a substitute for a full and correct description of the molecule itself. In the absence of a disclosure of the DNA sequence of the molecule in the specification, subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act is not satisfied. The claim may also be considered non-compliant with subsection 27(4) of the Act since the claimed subject-matter is not defined in distinct and explicit terms. 17.06.02
Considerations respecting anticipation Where an invention cannot be enabled without requiring access to a biological material associated with the invention, a description may lack sufficiency unless a deposit of this material was made [see 17.06.01]. This requirement extends to an allegedly anticipatory disclosure relevant under section 28.2 of the Patent Act [see Chapter 15 for further guidance]. Consequently, if a prior art disclosure requires access to a biological material in order for the matter described therein to be practised, the biological material must necessarily have been reliably available to the person skilled in the art before the claim date in order for the disclosure to be anticipatory.
An application claims a mutant strain of Citrobacter sp. that is able to effectively remove mercury from wastewater. The description provides details of the biological deposit of the strain with an international depositary. A search of the prior art reveals document D1, which discloses an isolated bacterial strain of Citrobacter sp. that has an ability to degrade mercury but does not describe a biological deposit or how to otherwise obtain the strain.
A biologically pure culture of a strain of Citrobacter sp. having mercury-degrading activity.
The culture of claim 1 wherein the strain is deposited under NCIMB Accession No. 24601.
Analysis: prior art document D1 discloses a strain that falls within the scope of claim 1; however, D1 is not enabling since the strain is not reliably available to the person skilled in the art. The strain is further defined in claim 2 by reference to a particular biological deposit, which is neither disclosed nor enabled in D1. Thus, the subject-matter of the claims is not anticipated by D1. It is noted that the examiner may additionally determine that the claims are defective in view of section 84 of the Rules and/or subsection 27(4) of the Act.
An application discloses plasmid Y and provides details of its biological deposit with an international depositary. Prior art document D2 describes "plasmid X", which was constructed from various known genetic elements using known methods. Plasmid X was not deposited but the genetic elements used to construct it were all freely available to the public. Claim:
Plasmid Y [which has the same elements and arrangement as prior art plasmid X] deposited as IDAC 314159-26.
Analysis: the claim is anticipated since claimed plasmid Y is indistinguishable from known plasmid X. Further, a person of skill in the art would be enabled to construct plasmid Y using known, freely available, genetic elements and methods. The fact that the plasmids do not share the same name does not negate the finding of anticipation.
Antibodies - January 2017 Antibodies, as a class of chemical compounds, have been structurally and functionally well-characterized. The structure of an antibody relates directly to its biological function, including its binding specificity and affinity to its target antigen. Structurally, each antibody is composed of light and heavy polypeptide chains where each chain has variable and constant regions. The variable regions comprise subregions involved in antigen binding, which are known as the complementarity determining regions (CDRs). It is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen binding site generally requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three CDRs which provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. Given that the sequences of the CDRs are responsible for the specific binding of the antibody to its antigen, small changes to those sequences may significantly and unpredictably alter binding specificity and affinity. Therefore, it is generally expected that all of the heavy and light chain CDRs in their proper order and in the context of framework sequences which maintain their required conformation, are required in order to produce an antibody and that proper association of heavy and light chain variable regions is required in order to form functional antigen binding sites. It is known that, in general, immunization of a mammal with an antigen results in the production of an antiserum containing a heterogeneous mixture of antibodies in which individual antibodies bind to different regions displayed on the surface of the immunizing antigen (i.e., an epitope or antigenic determinant). Thus, antiserum comprises an entire family of antibodies capable of binding to different epitopes on an antigen.
An antibody is often defined in functional terms by its specific binding to a particular target antigen. A claim directed to “an antibody which specifically binds to antigen X” typically represents a generic group of structurally different antibodies having common binding specificity to the antigenic target. This contrasts with a claim to a particular antibody which has been defined in terms of a property of the antibody itself rather than merely by what it binds (for example, the particular antibody is defined in terms of its encoding DNA/protein sequence, or by reference to a biological deposit that was made in accordance with the Patent Rules). Thus a claim to “an antibody which specifically binds to antigen X” is considered to be a claim to a generic group of structurally different antibodies having said binding specificity. Conversely, a claim to “an antibody which specifically binds to antigen X wherein said antibody has a heavy chain encoded by a nucleic acid of SEQ ID NO: 1 and a light chain encoded by a nucleic acid of SEQ ID NO:2” or a claim to “an antibody which specifically binds to antigen X and is produced by a hybridoma having accession number ABC-123”, encompasses only the particular antibody, i.e. is not a claim to a generic antibody.
A claim to an antibody, as with a claim to any other subject-matter, must be supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. In the case of antibodies, this means that at the relevant date, which is deemed to be the filing dateEndnotes 1, the specification must: correctly and fully describe the antibody invention and its operation or use as contemplated by the inventor; and set out clearly the various steps in a process, or the method of making or using the antibody, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the relevant art to make or use it. Generally, a claim to an antibody specific for antigen X will be considered supported by a specification provided:
antigen X itself has been fully characterized; and either antiserum has been prepared, or where antiserum has not been prepared, there is neither anything peculiar about the antigen nor any indications that would lead a person of skill in the art to question the likelihood of success if that person desired to produce an antibody to the antigen.
The claims must also distinctly and explicitly define subject-matter that is novel, non-obvious, useful and statutory.
If antigen X is known or obvious in view of the prior art then an antibody reactive with that antigen would generally be considered obvious. Where the prior art discloses and enables antibodies reactive with a close structural relative of antigen X, then a claim to an antibody reactive with antigen X (e.g. an antibody “capable of binding” or “that specifically binds” to antigen X) will be anticipated if the claim, upon a purposive construction, is construed to encompass cross-reacting antibodies of the prior art. An antibody invention must also be useful. An inventor need not expressly set out the utility of the antibody in the specification; however, if the invention’s utility is questioned, then it must be demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the application’s filing date in order to comply with section 2 of the Patent Act (for further guidance see 17.07.05).
The description discloses a novel protein that has utility as a diagnostic target for detecting a disease caused by a pathogenic bacterium. Also disclosed are the amino acid sequence of the protein (SEQ ID NO:2), methods of purifying the protein using recombinant techniques, and reference to routine methods of preparing antibodies to a protein by immunizing a suitable mammalian host. The description is silent as regards the production of any antibodies and lacks any working examples of an antibody specific to the protein.
An antibody that specifically binds to a protein consisting of the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
A search of the prior art for the sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO:2 reveals that the closest structural relative to the protein is 20% identical with no common domains of any significance. Analysis: the claim is fully supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act because the specification is enabling with respect to preparing antibodies and the scope of the claim in respect of the antigenic target is limited to the fully characterized protein of SEQ ID NO:2 which serves as a correct and full description of the corresponding antibody that specifically binds to it. Recognizing that the antigenic protein (SEQ ID NO:2) is not disclosed in the prior art, it follows that the claimed antibody, which specifically binds this protein, is novel and non-obvious. The protein (SEQ ID NO:2) itself has utility as a diagnostic target and antibodies that bind the protein serve a specific useful purpose. Further, the subject-matter of the claim is defined in distinct and explicit terms. Therefore, the claim complies with the Patent Act and Rules.
A search of the prior art for the sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO:2 reveals that the protein is a low-molecular-weight member of a class of known proteins. Prior art document D1 teaches that antibodies to this class of proteins have never been prepared despite several attempts.
Analysis: the description is silent as regards the successful production of antibodies against the protein of SEQ ID NO:2. Considering that D1 discloses that, despite several attempts, antibodies have never been raised against proteins of a similar type, the person skilled in the art would not regard the instant specification as sufficient to enable the production of the claimed antibody. Thus, paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Patent Act is not satisfied. It is noted that the antibody of claim 1 is otherwise correctly and fully described by way of the disclosure of the fully characterized antigen to which it specifically binds.
Polyclonal antibodies – January 2017 Polyclonal antibodies can be thought of as a generic group that is representative of the entire family of antibodies in antiserum capable of binding a target antigen. Polyclonal antibodies share specificity to the target antigen yet each individual antibody can differ in regard to which epitope on the antigen it specifically binds.
Methods for preparing polyclonal sera are well known in the art and a specification generally does not need to describe in detail any of these methods to be enabling with respect to paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Patent Act.
With respect to a correct and full description of the invention pursuant to paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Patent Act, an antibody, like any other chemical compound, can be described in terms of its chemical structure; however, polyclonal antibodies are not described this way. Rather, it has become accepted practice to describe polyclonal antibodies in terms of the fully characterized antigen to which they specifically bind, e.g., “an antibody that specifically binds to antigen X”. Recognizing that an antigen is implicitly understood to carry many epitopes, a fully characterized antigen is representative of the collective of epitopes carried on the target antigen and therefore provides a correct and full description of the corresponding polyclonal binding partners. For the purposes of paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Patent Act, a disclosure of an antigen’s chemical structure may be enough to fully characterize the antigen. Where the antigen is a protein, for instance, a description of its complete amino acid sequence is likely adequate. In some cases, a description of the antigen in other terms, such as formula, chemical name, physical properties or by biological deposit, may be adequate provided that the person skilled in the art understands the scope of the antibody claim through the unique physical or chemical properties of the antigen.
If antigen X is known or obvious in view of the prior art then polyclonal antibodies reactive with that antigen would generally be considered obvious. A polyclonal antibody invention must also be useful (for further guidance see 17.07.05).
Monoclonal antibodies – January 2017 A monoclonal antibody binds to a specific epitope or antigenic determinant carried on an antigen. A monoclonal antibody can be viewed as one member of the family of polyclonal antibodies contained in antiserum produced by an immunizing antigen. For specific guidance respecting humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies, see 17.07.03.
17.07.02a
As with claims to polyclonal antibodies, a claim to a monoclonal antibody must be supported by a specification that is both enabling and includes a correct and full description of the antibody invention. Sufficiency of disclosure is based on a fact-specific determination.Endnotes 2
The common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art is an important factor for assessing whether the specification of an application is sufficient to enable the skilled person to practise the invention. Generally, the specification need not set out a detailed procedure for producing a monoclonal antibody since the core steps for preparing a monoclonal antibody are now well known to a skilled person in the art. A description of a detailed step-by-step protocol would be necessary, however, if the invention resides, at least in part, in an applicant having inventively adapted known procedures to overcome some difficulty in making a monoclonal antibody to a particular antigen.
Although each application will be considered on its own merits, the following non-exhaustive list of factors should be considered by examiners when determining whether claims to monoclonal antibodies are enabled by a specification:
whether the applicant actually prepared a monoclonal antibody; where a monoclonal antibody had not been prepared,
whether the target antigen to which the monoclonal antibody specifically binds was fully characterized,
the availability and/or ease of production of the antigen,
whether there is an absence of any indications that the applicant was unable to produce a monoclonal antibody or that one of skill in the art would be unable to reproducibly make a monoclonal antibody to the target antigen, or
whether there is an absence of any indications that undue experimentation or undue adaption of known core steps would be necessary for preparing a monoclonal antibody;
whether the scope of an antibody claim in respect to the antigen is appropriate.
Thus, the enablement requirement of paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Patent Act is satisfied in cases where a person skilled in the art, in view of their common general knowledge and having only the specification and the fully characterized antigen, would be enabled to produce a monoclonal antibody specific to that antigen without displaying inventive ingenuity or undertaking undue experimentation.
A specification must not only be enabling with respect to a claimed monoclonal antibody but also must provide a correct and full description of the antibody to satisfy paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Patent Act. Although each application will be considered on its own merits, the following non-exhaustive list of factors should be considered by examiners when determining whether a specification provides acorrect and full descriptionof a monoclonal antibody:
whether there was a full characterization of the target antigen to which the monoclonal antibody specifically binds; if not, whether the applicant actually prepared the monoclonal antibody and provided a full characterization thereof;
if not, whether the applicant prepared a monoclonal antibody and deposited a hybridoma which produces the antibody, in accordance with the Patent Rules, on or before the filing date of the application [see 17.06]; and
whether the scope of an antibody claim with respect to the antigen is appropriate.
As outlined above, paragraph 27(3)(a) may be satisfied in respect of monoclonal antibodies described through reference to the fully characterized antigen to which they specifically bind.Endnotes 3 Depending on the facts of the particular case, a full characterization of the antigen can entail a disclosure of its structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties. In many cases, the disclosure of the complete amino acid sequence of an antigenic polypeptide may indicate possession of all the putative epitopes carried by the polypeptide and, by extension, serve to correctly and fully describe the genus of the corresponding generic monoclonal antibodies.Endnotes 4
Cases in which more detailed support may be required to provide a full characterization of the antibody invention include:
where the applicant is claiming a particular monoclonal antibody reciting particular functional characteristics that go beyond the simple interaction with the target antigen binding, e.g., where the monoclonal antibody is asserted to have agonist, antagonist or neutralizing activity, specificity for a particular epitope, or a remarkably high affinity constant;Endnotes 5
the target antigen is complex;
despite the target antigen being novel, the full characterization of the antigen identified the presence of substructures or epitopes that are common to a known antigen; and/or monoclonal antibodies immunoreactive with the novel target antigen could be either inherently known, by virtue of cross-reactivity with the novel antigen, or obvious.Endnotes 6
Depending on the facts of the particular case, this detailed support may come, for example, in the form of a disclosure of a representative embodiment of the antibody, a biological deposit, or an explicit description of the amino acid sequences of the binding regions of the monoclonal antibody, the epitope and/or the binding pocket of the target antigen essential to its function.
17.07.02b
Other patentability requirements
In order to be patentable, a claimed monoclonal antibody must be novel and non-obvious in accordance with sections 28.2 and 28.3 of the Patent Act, respectively. Please see Chapter 15 of this manual for a general discussion of anticipation and obviousness.
The Office considers that where the description includes a full characterization of a novel and inventive antigen X, a claim to the corresponding monoclonal antibody having specific binding to X would be novel and non-obvious. An enabling prior art disclosure of a monoclonal antibody specific to antigen X would anticipate a claim to a generic monoclonal antibody specific to antigen X. In cases where antigen X is disclosed and enabled by the prior art, a claim to a generic monoclonal antibody that binds antigen X would be obvious in view of the prior art. However, a claim to an antibody that binds antigen X may be novel and non-obvious where the claimed antibody is additionally defined in the claim by properties that distinguish the antibody from both generic and prior art antibodies, which may include: its structure, i.e., nucleotide or amino acid sequences;
reference to a novel hybridoma which produces the claimed antibody and which was deposited in accordance with the Patent Rules (see 17.06); and/or
a specific and supported binding activity, such as an affinity that exceeds the threshold affinity that is expected from a generic antibody. A monoclonal antibody invention must also be useful (for further guidance see 17.07.05).
Where an application claims nucleic acids or polypeptides relating to antibodies of the invention (e.g., light and heavy chains, variable regions, CDRs, etc.), the nucleic acids and polypeptides must be fully supported by the description (for further guidance see 17.05). 17.07.02c
The following hypothetical examples are provided to help clarify the foregoing. Example 1:
An application discloses a novel tyrosine kinase protein, its complete amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO:2) and corresponding nucleic acid sequence (SEQ ID NO:1). According to the description, enhanced activity of the protein is associated with pulmonary fibrosis. An embodiment of the invention includes monoclonal antibodies that specifically bind and inhibit the protein although no working examples of an antibody are described. A search of the prior art failed to identify any proteins with significant identity over the full length of the amino acid sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO:2 or any corresponding nucleic acid molecules.
A protein comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2.
A monoclonal antibody which specifically binds to the protein of claim 1.
Analysis: in this case, the examiner determined that claim 1 is compliant with the Patent Act and Rules (see 17.05 for further guidance on subject-matter related to this claim). The claimed subject-matter is novel and non-obvious because the prior art does not disclose or suggest any protein having an amino acid sequence with significant identity to SEQ ID NO:2. Further, the matter is fully supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act because the specification is enabling with respect to preparing the protein and includes a full characterization of this protein (i.e., through the disclosure of its complete amino acid sequence). The claim also complies with subsection 27(4) of the Act as the subject-matter is distinctly and explicitly defined.
Regarding claim 2, novelty and inventiveness is acknowledged because the antigenic target of the claimed monoclonal antibody (i.e., the protein of SEQ ID NO:2) is novel and non-obvious. The scope of claim 2 in respect of the antigenic target is limited to the fully characterized protein of SEQ ID NO:2 and the examiner considers that this provides a correct and full description of the corresponding claimed monoclonal antibodies. In this case, the person skilled in the art is also enabled to produce the monoclonal antibody at the filing date of the application. Therefore, the claimed monoclonal antibody is fully supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. The claim also complies with subsection 27(4) of the Act as the subject-matter is distinctly and explicitly defined.
The description discloses the production of murine monoclonal antibody, M1, specific for the RF protein for use in diagnosing Rheumatoid arthritis. Also disclosed are details of a biological deposit of the hybridoma that produces the antibody. A further embodiment includes monoclonal antibodies that compete with M1 although a working example of competing antibodies is not disclosed. A search of the prior art identified the murine RF protein and its full amino acid sequence. Claims:
An antibody selected from an anti-RF monoclonal antibody and an antigen-binding fragment thereof.
A monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to RF wherein the antibody is produced by the hybridoma having accession number IDAC 022612-11.
An antibody that competes for specific binding to RF with monoclonal antibody M1 produced by the hybridoma having accession number IDAC 022612-11.
An isolated polynucleotide encoding the variable light chain or heavy chain of the antibody of claim 2.
Analysis: claim 1 is obvious. The scope of the claim encompasses any monoclonal antibody that is specific to the antigenic RF protein. Given that techniques for preparing monoclonal antibodies were well established as of the claim date of the application, in this case, no inventive ingenuity is required on the part of the person skilled in the art to prepare a monoclonal antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, with specific binding to the known RF protein. Therefore, the claim is not in accordance with section 28.3 of the Patent Act. It is noted that the subject-matter of the claim is otherwise novel, defined in distinct and explicit terms and supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Act. The scope of claim 1 in respect of the target antigen is limited to the known and fully characterized antigenic RF protein and the examiner considers that this provides a correct and full description of the corresponding monoclonal antibodies and fragments thereof. In this case, the person skilled in the art, in view of their common general knowledge of routine antibody methods and having only the specification and the fully characterized antigen, would be enabled to produce an antibody (and fragments thereof) specific to RF without displaying inventive ingenuity or undertaking undue experimentation. Claim 2 defines the antibody by reference to a deposit of the hybridoma that produces it. The claim is novel since the prior art does not describe or enable the antibody (or antigen-binding fragment thereof) obtained from the hybridoma and is non-obvious because, unlike claim 1 to a generic antibody, claim 2 is limited to the particular antibody produced by the hybridoma having accession number IDAC 022612-11. Further, claim 2 is supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act because it is enabling with respect to the particular antibody claimed and, assuming that the hybridoma which produces M1 was deposited in accordance with the Patent Rules, the provision of the deposited hybridoma serves to provide a correct and full description of the M1 antibody. Therefore, the claim fully complies with the Patent Act and Rules. In claim 3, the antibody is distinctly and explicitly defined as one that competes with monoclonal antibody M1 for specific binding to the RF protein and, thus, satisfies subsection 27(4) of the Act. As noted above, the M1 antibody produced by the hybridoma having accession number IDAC 022612-11 is novel and non-obvious and it follows that an antibody that competes for specific binding with that particular antibody is also novel and non-obvious. Appreciating that the person skilled in the art could identify competing antibodies without undertaking undue experimentation or the need to exercise inventive ingenuity (e.g., by using routine competition binding assays), the subject-matter of claim 3 is enabled. Assuming that the hybridoma which produces M1 was deposited in accordance with the Patent Rules, the provision of the deposited hybridoma serves to provide a correct and full description of the M1 antibody and antibodies in general that specifically bind the same epitope, i.e., competing antibodies. Therefore, the claim is supported by a specification that satisfies subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act and complies fully with the Patent Act and Rules. Claim 4 is not compliant with the Patent Act and Rules. The description discloses details of a biological deposit of the hybridoma that produces the antibody but does not disclose the full nucleotide or amino acid sequences of the antibody itself. Therefore, the polynucleotide of claim 4 lacks compliance with paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Act. It is noted that a deposit of biological material is not a substitute for a full and correct description of the polynucleotide molecule itself (see 17.06.01 for further guidance). Further, the claim lacks compliance with subsection 27(4) of the Act because the polynucleotide is not distinctly and explicitly defined in the claim.
Humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies – January 2017 Advances in genetic engineering techniques have permitted the production of therapeutic humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies that combine non-human (e.g., mouse) and human amino acid sequences. The antibodies retain the non-human antigen binding characteristics conferred by the non-human sequences but beneficially elicit less antibody immunogenicity in human recipients as compared to a fully non-human monoclonal antibody. A humanized monoclonal antibody is a “CDR-grafted” antibody meaning that only the non-human complementarity determining regions (CDRs) of the variable light and heavy chains and selected variable region framework residues have been transferred or “grafted” onto a human antibody template. A chimeric monoclonal antibody is considered by the person skilled in the art to be a monoclonal antibody in which the non-human constant regions have been replaced with human constant regions. Chimeric antibodies are generally understood to exclude CDR-grafted antibodies.
A determination of whether a specification complies with subsection 27(3) of the Act in relation to humanized and chimeric monoclonal antibodies will generally rely on the same considerations as for monoclonal antibodies (see 17.07.02a). Recall that compliance with paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Act requires the person skilled in the art to be enabled to make or use the antibody invention. Although core steps for preparing humanized and chimeric antibodies are now well established in the state of the art, the examiner must carefully consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the skilled person, in view of their common general knowledge in the relevant art and the teachings of the specification, was enabled to prepare a humanized or chimeric antibody specific for the target antigen without having to undertake undue experimentation or display inventive ingenuity at the filing date.
Thus, paragraph 27(3)(b) may be satisfied in cases where, at the filing date, a person skilled in the art, in view of their common general knowledge and having only the specification and a fully characterized target antigen would not have to undertake undue experimentation or display inventive ingenuity to produce a generic humanized or chimeric monoclonal antibody specific to the target antigen.
Recall also that in order to satisfy paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Act, the specification must correctly and fully describe the antibody invention. When determining whether a humanized or chimeric antibody is correctly and fully described, the examiner may rely on the same considerations as for monoclonal antibodies as outlined in 17.07.02a. In brief, depending on the facts surrounding a particular case, a humanized or chimeric antibody may be correctly and fully described through reference to, for example:
the fully characterized antigen to which the antibody specifically binds (e.g., the complete amino acid sequence of the target antigenic protein);
a structural description of the humanized or chimeric antibody (i.e., the nucleotide or amino acid sequences which minimally encompass the non-human CDRs or the specific monoclonal antibody from which the antibody is derived); a hybridoma that produces the monoclonal antibody from which the humanized or chimeric antibody is derived and which was deposited in accordance with the Patent Rules on or before the filing date of the application [see 17.06]; or
a structural description of the epitope to which the humanized or chimeric antibody binds.
In some cases a correct and full description of a claimed humanized or chimeric antibody may require more detailed support (see 17.07.02a). Even where subsection 27(3) of the Act is satisfied, a claim to a humanized or chimeric antibody may not be patentable if the antibody lacks novelty or inventiveness. For instance, a claim to a generic humanized monoclonal antibody may be anticipated and/or obvious in view of an enabling prior art disclosure of: the fully characterized antigenic target to which the claimed antibody binds; monoclonal antibodies (including humanized or chimeric monoclonal antibodies) specific to the same antigenic target; or nucleotide or amino acid sequences corresponding to the CDRs of the claimed antibody.
A humanized or chimeric monoclonal antibody invention must also be useful (for further guidance see 17.07.05).
Example: An application discloses a Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) protein homolog and its complete amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO:2). According to a working example in the description, a murine monoclonal antibody was prepared using conventional methods and was shown to have high affinity to the homolog in vitro with no cross-reactivity to other Shh proteins. The specification does not include any details of either the structure of the antibody or any hybridoma clone. The description further states that the invention encompasses antibodies specific to the Shh homolog including polyclonal, monoclonal, chimeric and humanized antibodies as well as antigen binding fragments (Fab, Fab’, F(ab’)2, scFV and diabodies), which can be obtained using routine techniques known to persons skilled in the art. Claim:
An isolated antibody or antibody fragment thereof that specifically binds to a Sonic Hedgehog protein homolog comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, wherein the antibody or antibody fragment thereof is selected from the group consisting of polyclonal, Fab, Fab’, F(ab’)2, monoclonal, chimeric, scFV, diabody and humanized.
Analysis: claim 1 encompasses polyclonal antibodies, monoclonal antibodies, chimeric monoclonal antibodies, humanized monoclonal antibodies and antibody fragments (Fab, Fab’, F(ab’)2, scFv or diabody). With respect to enablement pursuant to paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Patent Act, all of the antibodies and fragments encompassed by claim 1 are enabled since core methods for preparing these were well known to the person skilled in the art at the filing date of the application. The description also confirms that conventional methods were sufficient to at least make a monoclonal antibody specific to the homolog. A correct and full description of the subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Patent Act over the entire scope of claim 1 is provided by virtue of the fully characterized target antigen to which the antibodies and fragments specifically bind. In this case, the complete amino acid sequence (SEQ ID NO:2) serves to fully characterize the antigen, and by extension, the corresponding antibodies and antigen binding fragments thereof. The examiner also determines that the target antigen is novel, non-obvious and useful and, therefore, the claimed antibodies and antigen binding fragments that specifically bind this antigen are likewise novel, non-obvious and useful. The claim also complies with subsection 27(4) of the Act as the subject-matter is distinctly and explicitly defined.
In view of the above, claim 1 complies with the Patent Act and Rules. 17.07.04
Fully human monoclonal antibodies – January 2017 Unlike chimeric and humanized monoclonal antibodies (see 17.07.03), human antibodies are derived entirely from human genes and, in view of this, are more desirable for use in therapeutic and diagnostic applications in humans. A determination of whether a specification complies with subsection 27(3) of the Act in relation to human monoclonal antibodies will generally rely on the same considerations as for monoclonal antibodies (see 17.07.02a). Recall that compliance with paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Act requires the person skilled in the art to be enabled to make or use the antibody invention. Although core methodologies, such as phage display technologies and transgenic-mouse technologies, are now routinely practised by persons skilled in the art to prepare fully human monoclonal antibodies to desired antigenic targets, the examiner must carefully consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the skilled person, in view of their common general knowledge in the relevant art and the teachings of the specification, was enabled to prepare an antibody without having to undertake undue experimentation or display inventive ingenuity at the filing date. See also 17.07.02a. Thus, the enablement requirement of paragraph 27(3)(b) of the Patent Act is satisfied in cases where a person skilled in the art, in view of their common general knowledge and having only the specification and the fully characterized antigen would be enabled to produce the antibody specific to that antigen without displaying inventive ingenuity or undertaking undue experimentation.
Recall also that in order to satisfy paragraph 27(3)(a) of the Act, the specification must correctly and fully describe the antibody invention. When determining whether a human monoclonal antibody is correctly and fully described, the examiner may rely on the same considerations as for monoclonal antibodies as outlined in 17.07.02a.
Even where subsection 27(3) of the Act is satisfied, a claim to a human monoclonal antibody may not be patentable if the antibody lacks novelty or inventiveness. For instance, a claim to a generic human monoclonal antibody may be anticipated by an enabling prior art disclosure, or may be obvious in view of an enabling prior art disclosure of: the fully characterized antigenic target to which the claimed antibody binds; monoclonal antibodies specific to the same antigenic target; or nucleotide or amino acid sequences corresponding to the CDRs of the claimed antibody.
A human monoclonal antibody invention must also be useful (for further guidance see 17.07.05).
Antibodies and utility – January 2017
An antibody invention must also be useful in order to satisfy section 2 of the Patent Act. The utility does not need to be expressly set out in the specification; however, if the invention’s utility is questioned, utility must be demonstrated or soundly predicted as of the application’s filing date. The threshold that must be proven to establish utility is generally quite low;Endnotes 7 a “mere scintilla” of utility will suffice.Endnotes 8 Importantly, where the specification sets out an explicit promise, utility will be measured against that promise.Endnotes 9
The skilled person in the art would generally accept that if an antigen itself has a practical utility then antibodies that bind the antigen would have at least some utility (e.g., for in vitro applications such as immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry and Western blotting). Where the specification promises that an antibody is useful for an in vivo therapeutic application, the therapeutic utility would need to be either demonstrated or soundly predicted in order to satisfy section 2 of the Patent Act. In cases where the utility requires the antibody to possess not only binding capacity to the target antigen but also functional activities, such as antagonist (i.e., blocking), agonist (i.e., activating) or neutralizing activity, the description would likely require more than a disclosure of the binding capacity to the target antigen to establish utility.Endnotes 10 The provision of a working example of the claimed antibody and in vitro or in vivo data showing the antibody has the required activity may be sufficient to demonstrate utility. In the absence of demonstration, the applicant must be in a position to soundly predict the additional functional activity necessary for the utility.
17.07.06* (formerly 17.07.02a)
Provisos and utility – January 2009 Where a proviso has been presented to avoid inoperative subject-matter, the basis upon which the utility of the remaining matter of the claim has been established must be reconsidered. Since utility will often be based on a sound prediction, a proviso to exclude a known inoperative embodiment requires that the line of reasoning upon which the utility of the remaining matter of the claim is based be reassessed.
17.07.07* (formerly 17.07.05) Scope of claims – January 2009 In order to fulfill their public notice function, a claim must define the invention in such a manner that the person skilled in the art will understand where they may and may not go without infringing.
As Lord Loreburn noted in Natural Kinematograph Co v Bioschemes Ltd, “[t]he patent system is designed to advance research and development and to encourage broader economic activity. Achievement of these objectives is undermined however if competitors fear to tread in the vicinity of the patent because its scope lacks a reasonable measure of precision and certainty. A patent of uncertain scope becomes a public nuisance”.Endnotes 11
An objection to a claim for ambiguity or lack of clarity as to its limits (indefiniteness) is made under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act. A claim is not indefinite simply because it is broad, but rather where the precise limits of the claim are uncertain. A claim that relies, for example, on the use of “a polyol” is not indefinite since the person skilled in the art can immediately appreciate the scope of that term. A claim relying on “a polyol capable of <performing some function>”, however, is indefinite if the person skilled in the art would not know, or be able to reasonably predict or determine, what polyols fall within the scope of the claim.
17.07.07a* (formerly 17.07.05a)
Recourse to the description During examination, the language of the claims is interpreted by giving each term its plain and usual meaning in the art to which the invention pertains unless it is clear from the description that a term in the claims is to be given a different meaning.
The courts have acknowledged that an applicant can act as their own lexicographer, by specifying in their description that certain terms will have particular meanings for the purposes of the application. Whenever an applicant is desiring to act as their own lexicographer, however, it is incumbent on them to make this clear from the language of the description. Further, in so acting it is not proper to give a term having a well-known meaning a definition which is contrary to this meaning. In such cases, uncertainty exists as to whether the term, when found in a claim, is intended to have its usual or distorted meaning.
For example, teaching that the term “up” means “down” for the purposes of the invention is only liable to cause confusion and serves no purpose. Such a definition, when made in the description, would be objected to under subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act. Further, the claim containing the term “up” is objected to under subsection 27(4) of the Patent Act for the lack of clarity as to whether the term is intended to actually mean “up”, or rather to mean “down” following the teachings of the description. Similarly, teaching that the symbol “P” indicates nitrogen atoms is misleading; the symbol is recognized in chemistry as designating phosphorus, and could readily be replaced by the appropriate symbol “N” to designate nitrogen. In contrast, teaching that the term “protein”, for the purposes of the invention, has some specific but sensible meaning could be acceptable, especially where this avoids having to repeatedly include a lengthy definition in the claims.
Whenever inclusion of the definition found in the description into the claims would not be detrimental to the clarity and conciseness of the claim, however, this should be done.
It is worth noting that the courts, in construing the claims of a patent, are dealing with a document whose language is fixed. Any deficiencies in the language of the claim can only be remedied by construing the claim in “an informed and purposive way”. During examination, in contrast, the language of the claims may be amended so as to remove ambiguity and maximize their usefulness in serving their public notice function of defining the extent of the monopoly sought.Endnotes 12
Where a defect of clarity has been noted by an examiner in the language of a claim, it will generally be maintained in the face of a response arguing that the courts could, with the assistance of expert testimony, arrive at some construction thereof. The purpose of the claims is to serve a public notice function, and “nothing can excuse the use of ambiguous language when simple language can easily be employed”.Endnotes 13
This section has intentionally been left blank
Synergistic chemical combinations – March 2016 The Office considers a synergistic combination to be one in which the combined use of two or more compounds or products generates a result that is greater than the sum of its parts and provides an unexpected advantageEndnotes 1. Please see Chapters 9 and 11 of this manual for a general discussion of combinations. Generally, implementing the physical acts of mixing or physically combining different chemical compounds or products does not require inventive activity; however, an inventive step may be acknowledged for a synergistic combination of known components that leads to an unexpected advantage (i.e., the synergistic effect) provided the advantage was disclosed in the originally filed descriptionEndnotes 2.
To ascertain whether an unexpected advantage has been produced by a combination, it is necessary to be aware of the point of reference (the result to be expected from combining the individual components), either in view of the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art in the relevant field or in view of the description.
The utility of a chemical combination is typically closely associated with the unexpected advantage. The utility of the combination must be established at or before the filing date of the application over the entire scope of the claim. Thus, where a synergistic effect is explicitly promised in an application, the synergistic effect must be either demonstrated or soundly predicted in order to establish utility. In cases where a first compound has been applied to its known purpose and another compound in the combination unexpectedly enhances the result of the first compound, the enhancement effect is, in some fields, referred to as potentiation and requires similar considerations to those described above with regard to patentability.
Reach-through claims – March 2016
A "reach-through" claim seeks to encompass subject-matter extending beyond the described invention in cases where the matter has not yet been identified by the inventor but may be discovered through future use of the invention. Considering that "nothing that has not been described may be validly claimed",Endnotes 1 in a reach-through claim the subject-matter defined by the claim is not supported by the specification since the specification fails to provide an adequate written description of the matter. To illustrate, consider an invention featuring a novel and inventive protein associated with disease Y. Claims to the protein and a method of screening for drugs that inhibit the protein may be acceptable; however, a claim to a product defined by the screening method, e.g. "a drug identified by the method of claim 2" would be considered a reach-through claim where products of the method have not yet been identified. In effect, the claim to a product identified by the method attempts to "reach through" the method in order to define a product that could be potentially identified in the future. Therefore, unidentified products of the method cannot be claimed as such a claim would fail to satisfy section 84 of the Patent Rules. Furthermore, where a product is claimed and not properly described in the specification, the disclosure and enablement requirements of subsection 27(3) of the Patent Act cannot be satisfied. As a further example, consider an invention directed to a new and inventive method of identifying receptor ligand antagonists. Although such a method may be patent-eligible, the method cannot be legitimately extended to generally claim all antagonists which might eventually be discovered through the future use of the inventive method. Likewise, the subsequent use of these unidentified antagonists, e.g. to treat disease, would not be patentable.
Thus, examples of reach-through claims may include: product claims directed to unidentified substances defined solely in terms of either the process or method used to identify them or by their ability to modulate the biological function of a biomolecule (e.g., antagonists and agonists); and
process, method or use claims that use said unidentified substances.
Deposits of biological material – March 2016 For the purposes of section 38.1 of the Patent Act, the term "biological material" includes material which is capable of direct or indirect self-replication. Directly self-replicating biological materials are those that replicate by themselves. Indirectly self-replicating biological materials are those that are capable of replication only in association with a directly self-replicating biological material. Bacteria, fungi (including yeast), plant seeds, cells in culture and hybridomas are representative examples of directly self-replicating materials; indirectly self-replicating materials include nucleotide sequences, plasmids, vectors, viruses, phages and replication-defective cells.
The Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure (The Budapest Treaty) was established in 1977. The Treaty is administered by WIPO and obliges contracting states to recognize the fact and date of a deposit of biological material for patent purposes, when it is made in a depositary which has acquired official status under the Treaty. Such a depositary is known as an International Depositary Authority (IDA). An applicant who is making multiple patent filings need only make one IDA deposit to satisfy the deposit practice in all contracting states.
The term "microorganism" is not defined in the Treaty so that it may be interpreted in abroad sense as to the applicability of the Treaty to microorganisms to be deposited under it. Whether an entity technically is or is not a microorganism matters less in practice than whether deposit of that entity is necessary for the purposes of disclosure and whether an IDA will accept it. Thus, for example, tissue cultures, plant seeds and plasmids can be deposited under the terms of the Treaty, even though they are not microorganisms in the strict sense of the word.
The Budapest Treaty came into force, with respect to Canada, on September 21, 1996.
Where to make a deposit A list of International Depositary Authorities and their specific requirements is available at the WIPO website.
When to make a deposit In accordance with subsection 104(1) of the Patent Rules, a deposit of biological material with an international depositary authority must be made on or before the filing date of the application.
Identifying a deposit
In accordance with subsections 104(2) and 104(3) of the Patent Rules, the applicant must inform the Commissioner, prior to publication of the application, of the name of the IDA and the accession number given by the IDA to the deposit, and must include that information in the description. Further, in accordance with section 104.1 of the Patent Rules, the applicant must include in the description the date of the original deposit with the IDA.
When a sample of biological material is deposited in an IDA under the Budapest Treaty for the purposes of patent protection, the depositor undertakes not to withdraw the sample for a period of at least 30 years from the date of deposit and for at least five years from the date of the most recent request made to the depositary for the furnishing of a sample of the deposited material (Rules 6 and 9 of the Regulations under the Budapest Treaty).
New and substitute deposits
After an original sample of biological material has been deposited in an IDA (an original IDA deposit), circumstances may necessitate that a new sample of the same material be deposited in either the same or a different IDA (Article 4 of the Budapest Treaty) or that the sample be transferred to a substitute IDA (Rule 5 of the Regulations Under the Budapest Treaty).
If an IDA cannot furnish a sample of deposited material because it is no longer viable, a depositor must make a new deposit in the same IDA.
If an IDA cannot furnish a sample of deposited material because the sample must be sent abroad and this is prevented by export or import restrictions, a depositor may make a new deposit in another IDA.
To maintain an original IDA deposit date, a new deposit must be made within three months of the depositor receiving notice from an IDA that a sample is no longer viable or cannot be sent abroad, or that the IDA's status has changed. The deposit must be accompanied by a statement that the newly deposited material is the same as that originally deposited. Under subsection 106(2) of the Patent Rules, if a new deposit is not made in accordance with Article 4 of the Budapest Treaty, the application is treated as if no deposit had ever been made.
If an IDA temporarily or permanently discontinues any of the tasks required of it as an IDA such that samples of deposited biological material can no longer be provided, the defaulting IDA is required to transfer samples of deposited materials to another IDA. The new IDA is referred to as a substitute IDA and the deposit is known as a substitute deposit.
In accordance with section 105 and subsection 106(1) of the Patent Rules, whenever a deposit of a biological material is made (or transferred) to an IDA different from the original IDA, the applicant must inform the Commissioner of the name of the new IDA and of the accession number given by the new IDA to the deposit before the expiry of the three-month period after the date of issuance of a receipt by that IDA.
Access to deposited biological material
Deposited biological material becomes available to the public once a patent application is open to inspection under section 10 of the Patent Act, or for applications filed before October 1, 1989 once a patent issues.
In accordance with subsection 104(4) of the Patent Rules, an applicant is entitled to restrict access to a deposit of biological material until such time as a patent has issued, or the application is refused, abandoned and no longer subject to reinstatement, or withdrawn, provided that they file a notice with the Commissioner before the application is open to public inspection. In such cases, any person may request that an independent expert be nominated by the Commissioner in accordance with subsection 109(1) of the Patent Rules. Once so nominated, that expert will have access to the deposit in accordance with subsection 104(4) of the Patent Rules.
In order to access a deposited biological material, a request must be made. Where a restriction has been made by the applicant and is in effect, only the independent expert may make such a request. When such a restriction is not in place, or no longer applicable, any person may request access to the deposited material.
A request for a sample of the biological material must be submitted to the Commissioner of Patents and requires, inter alia, that the requester undertake in accordance with section 108 of the Patent Rules not to make the sample, or any culture derived from the sample, available to any other person nor to use the sample, or any culture derived from the sample, for any purpose other than experiments that relate to the subject-matter of the application until such time as a patent issues, or the application is refused, abandoned and no longer subject to reinstatement, or withdrawn.
In the case of a granted patent, the request for a sample of the deposited material may be made directly to the IDA, without the need to provide a request form certified by the Commissioner of Patents unless the IDA specifically requires that a certified request form indicating that the patent has been issued be submitted.
A request form for the furnishing of a sample of deposited material will be published from time to time in the Canadian Patent Office Record (CPOR) and is also provided as Appendix 3 of the Guide to the Deposit of Microorganisms under the Budapest Treaty which may be found on the WIPO website.
Detailed procedures for obtaining samples of biological materials are provided in Appendix 2.
Nomination of an independent expert
In accordance with subsection 109(1) of the Patent Rules, the Commissioner of Patents will nominate an independent expert with the agreement of the applicant. Both the applicant and the person requesting that an expert be nominated may make suggestions as to who would be a suitable expert. In the event that the Commissioner of Patents and the applicant cannot agree on an acceptable expert within a reasonable time after a request has been made that such an expert be nominated, the applicant's notice under subsection 104(4) of the Patent Rules that access to a deposit be restricted to an expert is deemed, in accordance with subsection 109(2) of the Patent Rules, never to have been filed.
After a request has been filed with the Commissioner of Patents for the furnishing of a sample of deposited biological material, the Commissioner will, in accordance with subsection 107(2) of the Patent Rules, make the certification referred to in Rule 11.3(a) of the Regulations Under the Budapest Treaty that the deposit is referred to in an application for patent in Canada, that the requester has fulfilled all conditions for the furnishing of a sample, and that the requester has a right to a sample of the deposited material.
A copy of the request along with the certification is then sent to the requester in accordance with subsection 107(3) of the Patent Rules or in the case where the requester is an independent expert, to the applicant and to the person who requested the nomination of the expert in accordance with subsection 110(2) of the Patent Rules.
Steps for obtaining samples of biological materials – March 2016
To obtain a sample of a biological material referred to in a pending application on which no restriction has been placed under subsection 104(4) or 160(4) of the Patent Rules:
the requesting party completes parts I through IV of the request form;
the requesting party prepares a letter of undertaking, agreeing to abide by the conditions set out in section 108 or 164 of the Patent Rules;
the requesting party, under a covering letter, sends the letter of undertaking and the request form to the Commissioner of Patents, Place du Portage I, 50 Victoria St., Gatineau, Canada, K1A 0C9;
the Commissioner, or a designate, completes part V of the request form, certifies it with the seal of the Patent Office and returns it to the requesting party under a covering letter;
the requesting party sends the request form, a purchase order and any fee required to the IDA;
the IDA sends a sample of the biological material to the requesting party.
To release a sample of a biological material referred to in a pending application, on which a restriction has been placed under subsection 104(4) or 160(4) of the Patent Rules, to an independent expert:
the requesting party requests that the Commissioner of Patents nominate an independent expert for the purposes of the application;
the Commissioner of Patents, with the agreement of the applicant, nominates an independent expert within a reasonable time;
the independent expert completes parts I through IV of the request form;
the independent expert prepares a letter of undertaking, agreeing to abide by the conditions set out in section 108 or 164 of the Patent Rules; the independent expert, under a covering letter, sends the letter of undertaking and the request form to the Commissioner of Patents, Place du Portage I, 50 Victoria St., Gatineau, Canada, K1A 0C9;
the Commissioner, or a designate, completes part V of the request form, and certifies it with the seal of the Patent Office;
the Commissioner sends, under covering letters, the completed request form to the requesting party, and a copy of thereof to the applicant;
the IDA sends a sample of the biological material to the independent expert.
To obtain a sample of a biological material referred to in an issued patent:
the requesting party writes to the IDA with a purchase order giving the name and address of the requesting party;
the order should include evidence, e.g., a copy of the cover page of the Canadian patent, indicating that the patent has issued and the accession number of the biological material desired;
where required, the fee charged by the IDA for furnishing the sample is submitted along with the order.
Endnotes for 17.01
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 2. Use of Terms, 1992 [retrieved: 31 October 2011]
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.01 referrer Endnotes for 17.02
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 2002 SCC 76; [(2002), 21 C.P.R. (4th), 417 (S.C.C.)] at paragraphs 197-199
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 2
Re Application of Abitibi Co. [(1982) C.D. 933, 62 C.P.R. (2nd), 81 (P.A.B.)]
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 3
Harvard (supra at 1) at paragraphs 153-166 Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 4
For the purposes herein, a totipotent stem cell is defined as a cell capable of giving rise to all types of differentiated cells found in an organism, as well as the supporting extra-embryonic structures of the placenta. A single totipotent cell could, by division in utero, reproduce the whole organism. This definition is adopted from that provided in the Glossary on the National Institutes of Health, Stem Cell Information website, retrieved November 2014
Return to endnotes 4 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 5
For the purposes herein, embryonic stem cells are defined as primitive (undifferentiated) cells that are derived from preimplantation-stage embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Multipotent cells have the ability to develop into more than one cell type of the body. Pluripotent stem cells are capable of differentiating into all tissues of an organism, but are not alone capable of sustaining full organismal development. These definitions are adopted from those provided in the Glossary on the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Information website, retrieved November 2014 Return to endnotes 5 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 6
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2004 SCC 34; [(2004), 31 C.P.R. (4th), 161 (S.C.C.)] at paragraph 17
Return to endnotes 6 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 7
Re Application No. 2,306,317 of L'Oréal [(2011) C.D. 1312, 94 C.P.R. (4th) 274 (P.A.B.)]
Return to endnotes 7 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 8
Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623 [(1989), 25 C.P.R. (3rd), 257(S.C.C.)] at pages 263-265 (cited to C.P.R.)
Return to endnotes 8 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 9
Tennessee Eastman v. Commissioner of Patents [(1972), 8 C.P.R. (2nd), 203 (S.C.C.)]; Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents [(1986), 9 C.P.R. (3rd), 289 (F.C.A.)]
Return to endnotes 9 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 10
This conclusion is inferred from the decision in Re Application 319,105 of Boehringer Mannheim G.m.b.H. (1987) C.D. 1108, allowing a diagnostic method involving the removal of blood from the body
Return to endnotes 10 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 11
Re Application 394,006 of Catheter Technology Corporation (1986) C.D. 1082
Return to endnotes 11 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 12
Re Application No. 532,566 of General Hospital Corporation (1996) C.D. 1209;
Re Application No. 559,960 of Senentek (1997) C.D. 1213
Return to endnotes 12 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 13
Re Application No. 003,389 of N.V. Organon [(1973) C.D. 144, 15 C.P.R. (2nd), 253 (P.A.B.)]; Re Application for Patent of Goldenberg [(1988) C.D. 1119, 22 C.P.R. (3rd), 159 (P.A.B.)]
Return to endnotes 13 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 14
Re Application No. 862,758 (1970) C.D. 33; Re Application No. 954,851 of Biehl (1971) C.D. 63
Return to endnotes 14 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 15
Axcan Pharma Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc., [2006] FC 527 [(2006), 50 C.P.R. (4th), 321 (F.C.)]
Return to endnotes 15 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 16
Re Application No. 003,772 of Ijzerman (1975) C.D. 254; Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2005] FC 755 [(2005), 41 C.P.R. (4th), 35 (F.C.)]
Return to endnotes 16 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes 17
Goldenberg (supra at 13 )
Return to endnotes 17 of section 17.02 referrer Endnotes for 17.03
Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. [(1981), 56 C.P.R. (2nd), 145 (S.C.C.)] at page 160 citing Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed.), vol. 29 at page 59
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 2
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 3
Re Application No. 003,389 of N.V. Organon [(1973) C.D. 144, 15 C.P.R. (2nd), 253 (P.A.B.)]; the criteria "controllable and reproducible by the means disclosed" were commented on by the Federal Court of Appeal in Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [(2000), 7 C.P.R. (4th), 1 (F.C.A.)] at paragraph 70 (page 26); it was clarified at paragraph 75 that these requirements pertain only to those features necessary to achieve the objects of the invention.
Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 4
Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. [2002] SCC 77 [(2002), 21 C.P.R. (4th), 499 (S.C.C.)] at paragraph 46
Return to endnotes 4 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 5
Apotex (supra at 4) at paragraph 70
Return to endnotes 5 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 6
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. [2007] FC 26 [(2007), 59 C.P.R. (4th), 183 (F.C.)] at paragraph 70; aff'd [2007] FCA 195 [(2007), 60 C.P.R. (4th), 177 (F.C.A.)]
Return to endnotes 6 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 7
The Office's interpretation of Apotex (supra at 4) as regards proper disclosure has recently been confirmed in Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. [2008] FC 142 at paragraph 164.
Return to endnotes 7 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 8
Aventis Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. [2005] FC 1283 [(2005), 43 C.P.R. (4th), 161 (F.C.)] at paragraphs 93 and 164; aff'd [[2006] FCA 64 [(2006), 46 C.P.R. (4th), 401 (F.C.A.)] at paragraph 30
Return to endnotes 8 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes 9
Monsanto Co. v. Commissioner of Patents [(1979), 42 C.P.R. (2nd), 161 (S.C.C.)]
Return to endnotes 9 of section 17.03 referrer Endnotes for 17.04
Radio Corporation of America v. Raytheon Manufacturing Co. [(1957), 27 C.P.R. (1st), 1 (Ex.Ct.)] at page 14
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.04 referrer Endnotes 2
Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines, Ltd. [(1947), 12 C.P.R. (1st), 102 (Ex.Ct.)] at page 111; the cited passage has been referred to more recently in, e.g., Baker Petrolite Corp. v. Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. [2001] FCT 889 [(2001), 13 C.P.R. (4th), 193 (F.C.T.D.)] (rev'd on other grounds) and 671905 Alberta Inc. v. Q'Max Solutions Inc. [2001] FCT 888 [(2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th), 129 (F.C.T.D.)] (varied [(2003), 27 C.P.R. (4th), 385 (F.C.A.)]). Minerals Separation was referred to in both Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. [(1981), 56 C.P.R. (2nd), 145 (S.C.C.)] at page 157 and Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623 [(1989), 25 C.P.R. (3rd), 257(S.C.C.)] at page 268 as in a general sense setting out the requirements of a sufficient disclosure.
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.04 referrer Endnotes 3
Consolboard (supra at 2) at pages 154 to 155, Dickson J. quoting H.G. Fox from his Canadian Law and Practice Relating to Letters Patent for Inventions [(1969), 4th Ed.]
Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.04 referrer Endnotes 4
Consolboard (supra at 2) at page 157
Return to endnotes 4 of section 17.04 referrer Endnotes 5
Minerals Separation (supra at 2) at page 111; this passage endorsed in Consolboard (supra at 2) at page 157
Return to endnotes 5 of section 17.04 referrer Endnotes for 17.05
Re Application 2,017,025 of Yeda Research and Development Corporation [(2007) C.D. 1273]
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.05 referrer Endnotes 2
Reeck, Gerald et al., " 'Homology' in proteins and nucleic acids: A terminology muddle and a way out of it" (1987), 50 Science 667
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.05 referrer Endnotes 3
Altschul, S. et al., "Basic Local Alignment Search Tool" (1990), 215 Journal of Molecular Biology 403
Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.05 referrer Endnotes 4
Janssen-Ortho Inc. v. Novopharm Limited, 2006 FC 1234 [(2006), 57 C.P.R. (4th), 6 (F.C.)] at paragraph 99, aff'd 2007 FCA 217 [(2007), 59 C.P.R. (4th), 116 (F.C.A.)]. The requirement of section 28.3 has been variously described by the courts as one of "ingenuity", "inventive ingenuity", "invention", "inventiveness", and "non-obviousness". These terms can be used more or less interchangeably to describe the requirement codified in s.28.3.
Return to endnotes 4 of section 17.05 referrer Endnotes 5
Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc. 2008 SCC 61 at paragraph 67
Return to endnotes 5 of section 17.05 referrer Endnotes for 17.06
Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines, Ltd. [(1947), 12 C.P.R. (1st), 102 (Ex.Ct.)] at page 111
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.06 referrer Endnotes 2
Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v Canada (Commissioner of Patents), 1989 S.C.R. 1623 [(1989), 25 C.P.R. (3rd), 257(s.C.C.)] at page 271
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.06 referrer Endnotes 3
Re Application of Abitibi Co. [(1982) C.D. 933, 62 C.P.R. (2nd), 81 (P.A.B.)]; Re Application No. 291,870 of Connaught Laboratories [(1982) C.D. 962]
Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.06 referrer Endnotes for 17.07
Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Company v. Bayer Inc., 2015 FCA 116 at paragraph 67 and Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2012 SCC 60 at paragraph 90
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 2
Re Application No. 2,451,493 (2016) C.D. 1398 at paragraph 22 citing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Teva Canada Ltd., 2013 FC 283 Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 3
Re Application No. 2,451,493 (2016) C.D. 1398 citing Re Immunex Corporation Patent Application No. 583,988 [(2010) C.D. 1302, 89 C.P.R. (4th) 34 (P.A.B.)] at paragraph 67-68
Return to endnotes 3 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 4
Re Genentech Inc. Patent Application No. 2,407,304 [(2010) C.D. 1307, 92 C.P.R. (4th) 241 (P.A.B.) at paragraph 68]
Return to endnotes 4 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 5
Re Genentech Inc. Patent Application No. 2,407,304 [(2010) C.D. 1307, 92 C.P.R. (4th) 241 (P.A.B.) at paragraph 67]
Return to endnotes 5 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 6
Re Immunex Corporation Patent Application No. 583,988 [(2010) C.D. 1302, 89 C.P.R. (4th) 34 (P.A.B.) at paragraph 69]
Return to endnotes 6 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 7
Apotex Inc. v. Pfizer Canada Inc. 2014 FCA 250 at paragraph 64
Return to endnotes 7 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 8
Apotex (supra at 7) at paragraph 64, citing Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited 2010 FCA 197 at paragraph 76
Return to endnotes 8 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 9
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. 2010 FCA 197 at paragraph 76
Return to endnotes 9 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 10
Re Genentech Inc. Patent Application No. 2,407,304 [(2010) C.D. 1307, 92 C.P.R. (4th) 241 (P.A.B.) at paragraph 71-90]
Return to endnotes 10 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 11
Natural Colour Kinematograph Co. v. Bioschemes Ltd. 32 R.P.C. 256 at page 266; this passage also cited in Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Noranda Mines, Ltd. Return to endnotes 11 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 12
Any such amendment, of course, must not introduce new subject-matter such as to contravene subsection 38.2(2) of the Patent Act.
Return to endnotes 12 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes 13
Natural Kinematograph (supra at 11) at page 266. The use of “ambiguous” in this context should be understood in the context of the entire passage, wherein it was earlier stated that a patent is invalid if it relies on “language which, when fairly read, is avoidably obscure or ambiguous”.
Return to endnotes 13 of section 17.07 referrer Endnotes for 17.10
Lundbeck Canada Inc. v. Ratiopharm Inc., 2009 FC 1102, 79 C.P.R. (4th) 243 at paragraphs 228-229
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.10 referrer Endnotes 2
Lundbeck Canada Inc. (supra at 1)
Return to endnotes 2 of section 17.10 referrer Endnotes for 17.11
Minerals Separation North American Corp v Noranda Mines Ltd [(1947), 12 C.P.R. (1st), 102 Ex.Ct.)] at page 111
Return to endnotes 1 of section 17.11 referrer Back to the Table of Contents
Top of Page Page: E732-wr01611