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。
The Federal Circuit clarifies conflicts arising between Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-type Double Patenting
We perceive a sigh of relief from some patent holders following issue of the US Federal Circuit’s decision in Allergan USA v. MSN Labs, 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2014) (“Allergan”). This decision appears to forestall the revocation of some patents following the concerning precedential Federal Circuit decision In re Cellect (No. 22-1293) (“Cellect”).
What Satisfies the Palate of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal? Fish Oil and Fruit Juice, Apparently…
In a recent decision, the EPO’s Boards of Appeal have confirmed the importance of filing data to support arguments relating to sufficiency of disclosure in EPO opposition proceedings. The patent concerned related to a mixture of fish oil and fruit juice which was alleged to have anticancer properties. The opponent argued the constituents required to achieve the anticancer effect were not sufficiently disclosed, but failed to provide enough data to convince the Board of Appeal. Hence, the Board was satisfied the claimed composition was sufficiently disclosed and ordered that the patent be maintained in amended form.
Boards of Appeal Introduce New Broad Interpretation of “Substance or Composition” in the Context of Second Medical Use Claims
In this decision the Board has diverged from previous case law establishing that second medical use claims were restricted to products having a chemical mode of action and instead the Board ruled that “substance or composition” should stretch to any product which may be defined by its chemical composition, regardless of the mode of action.
Therapeutic Effect – a Higher Bar for Novelty than for Sufficiency at the EPO
EPO medical use claims are interpreted to include the physiological or technical effect of the treatment as being a functional feature of the claim. However, this interpretation yields different bars for novelty and sufficiency, as confirmed by EPO TBA Decision T 0209/22.
New Hope for Antibody Claims in the US
However, in a significant development we now report, means-plus-function language for a claim to an antibody complied with both of the USPTO requirements for written description and for the claim not to be indefinite. Where functional language alone is used in US claims, such claims commonly attract written description and enablement objections. Enablement requires that […]
Clarity Once Again: The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal Suggests the Current Test for Whether to Admit Post-Filed Evidence into Proceedings Should Stand
Following G 2/21, the referring board in the case underpinning that referral (T 116/18) established a test based on the principles set out by the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal for deciding whether to admit post-filed evidence into proceedings. The opponent then filed a petition for review of that decision, rendering it unclear whether the new test would be upheld or overturned. The Enlarged Board has now issued its preliminary opinion on that petition, which strongly suggests the test established by T 116/18 will be upheld and the petition dismissed.
UPC Court of Appeal Suggests the Description is Relevant to Deciding Whether Certain Embodiments Are Excluded from the Scope of the Claims
The question of whether and to what extent the description should be used to interpret the claims of a patent is a disputed topic in patent law, with there being a need to construe the claims as they are written whilst also reading them in the context of the patent as a whole. In its first substantive decision, the UPC’s Court of Appeal suggests the description can be used to decide whether arguably impractical embodiments are excluded from the scope of the claims.
Back in the Maze: Is the Decision of the Referring Board in G 2/21 About to be Overturned?
When the referring board’s written decision was issued in the case underpinning the “plausibility” referral (G 2/21) late last year, it provided much-needed certainty about how the EPO would apply G 2/21 in the future. However, that certainty has been short-lived because the opponent in that case has filed a petition for review of the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
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。
