“Good Faith” is a challenging concept that brings with it the nuances of a particular jurisdiction’s ideas about honesty, moral values, and societal expectations. Most patent laws around the world include good faith requirements – especially in matters involving the legal and the medical profession – and China is no exception. So what’s the standard? This case demonstrates one example of how stark inconsistencies between post-filing (clinical trial) data and publicly available information led the CNIPA to reject a case because of false post-filing data submitted in violation of the “good faith” requirement. Case Background The disputed patent application, titled “A Type of Tini-Class Small Molecule Compound and Its Preparation…
-
-
RNAi Patent Success in China: Overcoming “Comprising” Claim Challenges
An Update on Sufficiency and Inventiveness of RNAi Patents in China RNAi is a fast-developing technology that has gained traction in the pharmaceutical industry as a promising therapeutic agent. It is important to follow closely RNAi patent proceedings to learn how different examination boards and courts understand and handle these new technologies. The first-ever invalidation decision in China for an RNAi patent1 was rendered in 2022 by the Patent Re-examination Board (the “Board”). We previously wrote about this case, which discussed the standards for post-filing data, sufficiency, and inventive step, particularly for RNAi inventions. Since then, two newer cases involving RNAi have also been upheld by the Board after facing similar…
- Biotech, China, China Patent Office, CNIPA, Inventions, national phase entry application, Patent, Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Department, PCT, PRD, Priority
Can I transfer priority rights in China without the consent of other applicants? Insights from the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent
The high-profile disputes surrounding an important CRISPR patent belonging to The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard (hereinafter “the proprietors”) has attracted a lot of attention in recent years, particularly regarding the validity of priority rights that were challenged worldwide. In Europe, the patent was famously revoked by the European Patent Office (hereinafter “EPO”) due to an invalid priority claim1, though recent decisions by EPO suggest a dramatic shift in EPO’s approach that may lead to a different outcome2. Today, we will discuss the decision of the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter “CNIPA”) in determining whether the proprietors’ priority claims in their CRISPR patent in China were valid, given discrepancies…