Until recently, the bar for patentable subject-matter in the US was defined by “anything under the sun that is made by man”. However, in the wake of some landmark decisions in the US Supreme court, this mantra is no longer accurate.
In December 2014 the US patent authority, USPTO, laid out new guidelines for patentability of nature-based products under 35 USC § 101. The guidelines are described in the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, which is a guide on how Examiners should determine whether a patent claim is excluded from patentability or not.
The new guidelines that were updated in May 2016 may in some cases be difficult to interpret for the life-science and pharmaceutical companies who wish to enter the US market. Therefore, our patent attorneys Andreas Lauge Christensen (PhD in biotechnology) and Jan Mondrup Pedersen (PhD in chemistry) try to clarify the rationality and the importance of the 35 USC § 101 objections in their article below.
Our experts elaborate on the different steps that are part of the new mayo-test of patentability, and how to respond to the American legal practice. Further, they present the four most essential examples used by the USPTO regarding nature-based products.
You can access the article by clicking on the link below:
