生命科学和生物技术
我们的客户
施利希为各种类型的生命科学客户提供服务。这些客户涵盖了从初创企业到大型跨国公司，从大学到成熟企业，再到分拆公司的各个企业。我们深知，每个公司都是独一无二的，每个组织或个人都有不同的需求。
我们的生命科学律师团队根据客户的不同目标，为其提供量身定制的法律服务。我们擅长于支持客户的不同需求。我们支持拥有大量现有专利权的跨国企业，也支持建立在保护独特技术发展基础上的发展中企业。
生命科学和生物技术
主张并保护您的发明
施利希律师精通如何主张和保护生命科学领域的发明权利。我们团队为生命科学技术的各个方面准备和提交专利说明书：从干细胞技术到DNA脱氧核糖核酸编辑系统；从改良抗体到新型微生物；从医疗设备到小分子药物。
我们的团队不但在欧洲增光添彩，而且在美国、日本、加拿大、澳大利亚、印度、中国和其他主要市场的专利权保障方面也拥有丰富的经验。此外，我们在其他司法管辖区有一个广泛的合作伙伴网络，我们与他们合作，以获得我们能够实现的最广泛的商业用途的专利权。通过这种方式，客户的知识产权价值可以得到最好的保护和实现。
初创企业
初创企业通常需要大量的法律援助，以确保企业能够有效的使用资源，为公司增加价值并得到有效的法律保障。施利希知道，专利权和知识产权可能是初创企业拥有的最有价值的财产。因此，我们的职责通常是了解资源的有效部署并提供建议，以保护初创企业宝贵的技术成果并持续发展其业务。
发展中企业
然而，有时企业从初创期或分拆期向成熟期过渡。这意味着作为公司基础和组织的一部分，需要深入的知识产权咨询。为了实现这一目标，施利希律师可以密切参与我们客户的早期商业愿望。因此，除了获得专利权之外，我们还可以监控和分析竞争对手所拥有的专利权和待定的专利要求。我们还审查和分析市场状况以及正在进行的交易将对我们客户的业务产生的影响。因此，我们能够通过起草正式的专利申请来支持发展中的业务，并在相关国家的同事的支持下指导其起诉。
大型企业
跨国公司可能有较大的内部部门，其员工在专利申请的提交和审批方面具有丰富的经验。然而，跨国公司的广泛性意味着往往需要针对具体管辖区的详细建议以获得最佳保护。虽然不同国家的专利制度的意图可能是相同的，但要了解不同司法管辖区之间的差异，通常需要当地专家来避免陷阱。尤其是当司法管辖区在法律和实践中存在细微但重要的差异时，情况尤其如此。比如说美国和欧洲专利组织之间的差异，这些差异可能看起来很轻微，但可能对申请人能够获得的权利产生重大影响。
这方面的一个例子是与CRISPR（成簇的规则间隔的短回文重复序列）技术的发展和优化有关的专利申请的起草和起诉。CRISPR-Cas系统是获得诺贝尔奖的基因编辑技术的一次飞跃，其商业发展的速度非常快。施利希代表Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.（北美一家领先的生物技术公司），处理与开发和改进基于CRISPR-Cas的基因编辑相关的专利申请的起草和起诉，以及反对潜在竞争对手的专利要求。
引起争执的诉讼程序
施利希的律师在欧洲专利局（EPO）和英国知识产权局（UKIPO）的诉讼程序方面经验丰富。我们的律师擅长在考虑、准备和起诉诉讼程序时，提供最具有成本效益的建议。我们的重点始终是为客户争取商业相关的诉求利益。
举例来说，为了继续上面的案例研究，施利希律师已经成功地反对了在真核生物中使用CRISPR（成簇的规则间隔的短回文重复序列）系统的基本方面的专利要求。其他专利也遭到了反对，并将其范围限制在包含特定特征的版本上，如特定的引导物、来自不寻常生物体的酶或酶的变化。通过这种方式，我们的客户能够更好地在市场上运营。然而，上诉仍在进行中，施利希律师将出席并辩护，继续为捍卫我们客户的的立场全力以赴。
近期案例解析
阅读来自施利希团队最近与生命科学和生物技术领域相关的案例解析。
Lynk Labs asks Supreme Court of the United States to define prior art in the context of inter partes review proceedings
With the America Invents Act, Congress introduced a new administrative procedure for challenging patents – inter partes review (IPR). Any person, except the Proprietor, can file a petition for review but only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (35 U.S.C. § 311(b)). In a judgement handed down in January 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold several of Lynk Lab’s patent claims as obvious over a US patent application filed before, but published after, the priority date of Lynk Lab’s patent claims. Key to this finding was the Federal Circuit’s affirmation that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date and fall within the ambit of the category printed publications. Now Lynk Labs has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari asking “Whether patent applications that become publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are “prior art *** printed publications” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)”. In Lynk Lab’s opinion, they are not.
G 1/23 confirms that products placed on the market before the effective date of a European patent application constitute prior art, regardless of whether they can be reproduced
On 2 July 2025, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) issued its decision in G 1/23. The referral stemmed from T 0438/19, an appeal against the decision of an opposition division to reject an opposition against a European patent directed to a material for encapsulating a solar cell which comprises an ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer with certain defined properties, including a content of aluminium element of from 10 to 500ppm. D1 disclosed a commercially available copolymer, ENGAGE® 8400, which the opponent/appellant sought to rely on as the closest prior art for their inventive step challenge; however, the Patentee argued, with reference to G 1/92, that ENGAGE® 8400 cannot be reproduced (i.e., it is not enabled) and therefore it has not been made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC and thus is not a suitable starting point for the assessment of inventive step. Grappling with how to interpret G 1/92, the Board in T 0438/19 referred three questions to the EBA focused on understanding whether a commercial product, put on the market before the filing date of a European patent application, can be excluded from the state of the art for the sole reason that it could not be reproduced. The EBA has now answered, and the short answer is no!
South Africa Introduces New Plant Variety Rights Act Echoing the EU System
South Africa follows in the EU’s footsteps with new Plant Variety Rights Act which draws many parallels to the existing EU system
A Legal Framework for Considering Second Medical Use Claims at the UPC: Sanofi vs Regeneron
The jurisprudence of the United Patent Court (UPC) is relatively new and thus new aspects frequently arise. A decision of the Dusseldorf local division of the UPC may provide a framework for assessing infringement of second medical use claims, which might be persuasive to other UPC courts.
Landmark CJEU judgement opens up new avenues for European patent litigation
In a recent landmark judgement, the CJEU confirmed the possibility of European patent holders being able to consolidate actions for patent infringement across multiple EU and non-EU member states at a single EU court. For patent holders looking to assert their IP in an efficient, and likely more cost-effective and harmonious manner, the implications of the CJEU decision on enforcement strategies before both national courts and the UPC are noteworthy.
UK to Second Medical Use SPCs: Thanks, But No Thanks
Background of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) SPCs are heavily relied on by pharmaceutical companies to extend the period of patent protection. Under the current regulations, SPCs can only be granted if the product is: 1) protected by a basic patent in force; 2) a marketing authorisation has been issued to place that product on the […]
EPO Tightens Patent Rules for Medical Data Processing Innovations
Background and First Instance Decisions In Europe, claims directed toward mathematical methods are allowable only if it is clear that they contribute to the “technical character” of an invention. Under European practice, to assess the inventive step of a mathematical method claim, it is evaluated whether the method contributes to the “technical character” of the […]
UniQure’s Haemophilia B gene-therapy patent found valid – and infringed by Pfizer
The range of gene-therapies available to patients is ever expanding and it was only a matter of time before a conflict arose that had to be considered by the UK patent courts. Now uniQure has defended its patent for a Haemophilia B gene therapy against a revocation action brought by Pfizer.
联系我们
我们的英国和欧洲专利律师和特许商标律师团队具有丰富的知识和经验，能够协助客户满足其知识产权各个方面的法律需求。
立即联系我们，了解我们如何帮助您和您的企业的更多信息。
