Pascual Segura - Intellectual Property - Master DIA 2021-22

Master's degree on
Subject:
Information and documentation. Legal regulation.
Intellectual Property
Part:
Intellectual Property (IP)

Barcelona. 2021: Sept. 27; Oct. 4, 18 & 25; Nov. 8 & 15
Prof Pascual Segura

Prof.
Founder and Director of the UB Patent Centre. Spanish Patent Attorney of the UB
MSc in Chemistry at Univ. València; Ph.D. at Univ. Barcelona; postdoctoral researcher at Univ. California Santa Cruz
El
Electedd member
b off the
h fifirst A
Academic
d i AdAdvisory
i B
Boardd off the
h EEuropean P
Patent A
Academy,
d E
European P Patent Offi
Office
1
NOTE: Slides marked with are sufficient for preparing the exam
2020-10-01
front page
Mafalda is
not an
invention!
( in the
sense of
Intellectual
Property,
namely:
a technical
solution to
a technical
t h i l
problem )
2 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

31 octubre 2013
Another mistake: laymen and the media

often refer to 'patents' when they mean
other
h IPR which
hi h are neither
i h patents nor
utility models (industrial designs, trademarks,
geographical indications,
indications copyright ...))
La Vanguardia 2014.03.28
Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
3
EPC Article 52(1): Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of
technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step [are non
obvious in US] and are susceptible of industrial application. application
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EPO Guidelines] G-I. Patentability. 1. Basic requirements

There are four basic requirements
q for patentability:
p y
(i) there must be an "invention", belonging to any field of technology;
[requirement of "technical character" or "technicality"]
(ii) the invention must be "susceptible of industrial application";
(iii) the invention must be "new" ; and
(iv) the invention must involve an "inventive
inventive step"
step .
In ordinary
y life an "invention" is somethingg useful and new ("inventive"
(
being implicit in "new"). In the patent system an "invention" is a mere
technical teaching; its industrial applicability/use, its novelty and its
inventive step/non-obviousness are assessed separately.
The most common misunderstanding:
The 'myth
myth of the inventor as a solitary genius
genius' (1)
Many people think that the patents system
derives its justification from what is sometimes
referred to as the 'myth of the inventor as a
solitary
lit genius',
i ' that
th t can be
b summarized
i d as
follows:
The inventor is a man who, working in solitude
with his own facilities, eventually makes
something which is a breakthrough [his
invention], fills some paperwork [the patent
application] and sends it off, along with a model
of his invention, to the Patent Office.
Then, the Patent Office reviews the application,
grants a patent, and the inventor can sit back
and wait for fame and fortune.
The 'myth of the inventor as a solitary genius' (2)
- As for solitariness,
solitariness most patented inventions today are the work of
teams of inventors [men and women], who are employed by corporations
or public research centers (e.g. universities) and who earn a salary and
seldom participate in the profits coming from invention's exploitation.
- As for 'fame
fame and fortune'
fortune , making money from a patent application is
more the exception than the rule. Only ca. 40% of the patent
applications are granted (the other 60% being rejected or -more frequently-
abandoned by the applicants). Very few (5-10%) of the granted patents
provide some -direct or indirect- benefit to their owners. And the worst...
- SUCCESS → IMITATION → CONFLICT → VALIDITY CHALLENGE In the

(exceptional) cases when the subject-matter protected by a patent is very
successful on the market, there is a high probability that the patent
validity is challenged by potential imitators. In 40-50% of these cases the
granted patent is declared invalid!
In the average, a granted patent has the lowest probability
of being valid for a title of private property!
- Concerning
C i 'filli
'filling some paperwork',
k' inventors
i t virtually
i t ll never draft d ft their
th i
own patent applications without the help of an skilled patent drafter. In
fact, drafting good patent applications is the most difficult task in the patent
system.
- Sending g tangible
g products
p ((electromechanical models,, samples
p of
chemicals or biologicals, etc.) to patent offices is not allowed.
Nevertheless, black&white drawings, chemical formulae and biosequence
listings are often part of a patent application.
application
- In order to obtain a patent, inventors do not have to actually make
something tangible or experimental.
experimental This is particularly true in
electromechanics, where sometimes only drawings are actually 'made'; in
chem-pharma-biotech some experimental result is generally needed. In
general, invention requires 'conception' (the formation, in the mind of the
inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative
invention) and the 'reduction
invention), reduction to practice
practice' may consist of merely drafting the
patent application (not build, but describe how to build). Concerning
enablement requirement, the burden of coming forward with reason to
doubt that the invention will work rest with the Patent Office.
- As
A for
f genius
i (someone
( who
h comes up with ith an id
idea th
thatt iis ffar,
far ahead of his time), it turns out to be pretty uncommon in
th inventive
the i ti sphere.
h
New ideas are often 'in the air' or result from changes in the
market demand or the availability of new or cheaper starting
materials; as a result, near-simultaneous 'incremental'
inventions by two or more teams working independently of
one another is so prevalent as to be virtually the norm.
A genius having a 'flash of inspiration' is the exception, not
the rule.
Let's
Let s see two real
examples from the
chem biotech field ...
chem-biotech

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): a technology that
was a revolution in modern biotech,
biotech and a good
example of invention (by Kary B. Mullis, in 1985)
made as a consequence of a 'flash
flash of inspiration
inspiration'
PCR has become commonplace

during the current Covid-19 pandemic
(cf. Wikipedia)
10 PCR: an example of employee invention
First [granted] European patent on PCR

https://www nobelprize org/prizes/chemistry/2020/prize announcement/
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/prize-announcement/
7 October 2020
"for the development of a

method
th d for
f genome
editing"

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/prize-announcement/
7 October 2020

CRISPR dispute: Who gets patent, and who wins Nobel Prize?
Sarah Zhang | October 5, 2015
Nobel Prize speculation, gossip, and betting pools kick off every fall around the time Thomson
Reuters releases its predictions for science’s most prestigious prize. This year, one prediction
was unusual: a much
much-hyped
hyped genome
genome-editing
editing tool called CRISPR/Cas9.
Thomson Reuters bases its predictions on how often key papers get cited by other scientists.
Here, the paper in question has as its authors Jennifer Doudna, a molecular biologist at UC
B k l
Berkeley, andd Emmanuelle
E ll Charpentier,
Ch ti a microbiologist
i bi l i t now att th
the M
Max Pl
Planck
k IInstitute
tit t for
f
Infection Biology. Missing is Feng Zhang, a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute and
MIT, who actually owns the patents for CRISPR/Cas9 and says that he came up with the
idea independently
independently.
The two groups -or their patent lawyers, really- are in fact fighting over credit for
CRISPR/Cas9. At stake are millions of dollars already poured into rival companies that have
licensed patents from the two different groups.
Francis J.M.
But putting aside all the lawyers and all the money for
Mojica,
a moment,, obsessing g over findingg the one true origin
g
Researcher at
of Crispr/Cas9 gets science all wrong. Casting the
the Univ.
narrative as Doudna versus Zhang or Berkeley versus
Alicante
MIT is a misapprehension of history, creativity, and
(Spain) made
(Spain),
innovation. Discovery comes not from a singular
fundamental
stroke of genius, but an incremental body of
contributions
research.
and coined
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/05/crispr-
dispute-who-gets-patent-and-who-wins-nobel-prize/ CRISPR
How to make money from private or academic inventors
At universities and
public research centers,
the g
goal is to p
protect the
technology for
transferingg it ((where
size does not matter)

Prof. Harry Steenbock, University of Wisconsin, 1924.
From his own pocket, he paid for 660 $ to file a patent
application,
li ti that
th t very soon was sold
ld by
b 900.000
900 000 $.
$ He
H
founded WARF, which provided > 100 mil. $ along its first 50
years ((5% of the total R&D budget
y g of the University)y)
Stanley Cohen & Herbert Boyer,

University of Stanford & UCSF
UCSF, 1974
1974.
Their patents (only granted in US due to
the one-year grace period) had
generated > 200 mil. $ of royalties in
1997.
Margarita Salas (†) et.

et al,
al CSIC,
CSIC 1990
1990.
Along its whole life, the exploitation of
their patent (US, JP, EP) has yielded
almost 4 mil. € of royalties
17 ?! Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
The worst mistake: mixing Intellectual Property with
Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory compliance refers to comply with relevant
laws, regulations, specifications, standards or policies,
established by public administrations to control certain
activities.
ti iti
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) provide exclusivities
based on the possibility of excluding private third parties
from certain activities ((ius p
prohibendi,, not ius utendi).
)

Probably the main source of misunderstanding:
patent applications vs.
vs [granted] patents
When talking on 'patents' it is crucial to differentiate between:
patent applications (applns.), which are published 18 months after
the oldest priority date, as 'A' documents, with the claims as filed,
and
p
patents , which are ppublished [[few or many]
y] years
y after the
corresponding applns., as 'B' documents, with virtually the same
description of the appln., but with the claims as approved by the patent
office (typically narrower than those of the appln.); patents are
published, only if they are granted, what happens in less than 50%
of the applns.
applns filed
filed.
Without having any warranty of validity (i.e. their validity
can be challenged all along their life)
life), only claims in a
[granted] patent are prima facie considered valid,
and confer some rights to exclude third parties from
exploitation of the claimed technical matter (i.e. 'patent
19protection'). Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines
A COVID
COVID-19 19 vaccine
i iis a vaccine
i intended
i t d d tot provide
id acquired
i d
immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
(SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). On 10
January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence data was shared through
GISAID, a global science initiative and primary source established in 2008 that
provides open-access
p p to g
genomic data of influenza viruses and coronavirus. This
enabled global responses to the pandemic, including the development of the first
vaccines and diagnostic tests to detect SARS-CoV-2. GISAID facilitates genomic
epidemiology and real-time
real time surveillance to monitor the emergence of new COVID-
COVID
19 viral strains across the planet.
As of April 2021, 13 vaccines are authorized by at least one national regulatory
authority for public use: two RNA vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna),
five conventional inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV, CoronaVac, Covaxin, WIBP-
CorV and CoviVac), four viral vector vaccines (Sputnik V, Oxford–AstraZeneca,
Oxford AstraZeneca,
Convidecia, and Johnson & Johnson), and two protein subunit vaccines
(EpiVacCorona and RBD-Dimer).
In total, as of March 2021, 308 vaccine candidates are in various stages of
development, with 73 in clinical research, including 24 in Phase I trials, 33 in
Phase II–II
II trials,
trials and 16 in Phase III development.
development
(Wikipedia, May 2021)
'waiving' [confiscating] patents on COVID vaccines?
Nature NEWS. 6 May 2021.
In shock move, US backs waiving patents on COVID vaccines
The development from the Biden administration draws cheers from public health
researchers and ire from drugmakers.
“It’s
It s a 1-2-3
1 2 3,” explains Rachel Cohen
Cohen, the US director for the non-profit
non profit organization
Drugs and Neglected Diseases initiative, based in New York City. “First we need to
remove patent obstacles, second we need to transfer the knowledge on how to
make them
them, and step three is a massive investment in manufacturing capacity
capacity.”
And at the moment step one is far from complete. The World Trade Organization will
only negotiate the details of which patents to adjust after all its member countries
agree on some sort of waiver...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01224-3
Philip Blenkinsop
The European
p Union on Thursday y backed a U.S.
proposal to discuss waiving patent protections for
COVID-19 vaccines.
World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala told member states that she
warmly welcomed
“warmly welcomed” the U.S.
U S move.
move
World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros

Adh
Adhanom Gh
Ghebreyesus
b reached
h d for
f capital
it l letters
l tt iin a
tweet calling Biden’s move a “MONUMENTAL
MOMENT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST #COVID19,” and
said it reflected “the wisdom and moral leadership of
the United States.”
cont.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-waiver-eu-idAFKBN2CN0OO
Germany, the EU’s biggest economic power and home to a
large pharmaceutical sector, rejected the idea, saying
g were due to limited production
vaccine shortages p
capacity and quality standards rather than patent
protection issues... “The protection of IP is a source of
innovation and must remain so in the future
future.” Moreover,
Moreover a
waiver would take months to negotiate and require
unanimous agreement among the 164 countries in the WTO.
The global COVAX vaccine distribution program, led by

the WHO and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunization, that aims to supply vaccines to low-income
countries, has so far handed out around 41 million doses.
French President Emmanuel Macron said he was “very

much in favour” of opening up intellectual property. However,
a French government official said vaccine shortages was
the result of a lack of production capacity and
ingredients, not of patents.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01224-3
AIPPI position: TRIPS Agreement and the COVID-19 Waiver
"AIPPI shares the concerns raised by the waiver proponents and

co-sponsors, ... with
ith respectt to
t the
th challenges
h ll posed
d by
b the
th currentt pandemic
d i ...".
"
"AIPPI is not aware of evidence that intellectual property rights constitute a barrier
for accessibility
y of COVID-19 related medicines and technologies. g In the opinion
p of
AIPPI, waiving TRIPS provisions would negatively impact the framework established
to reach the objectives mentioned above on both a medium and a long-term basis.
AIPPI also urges WTO members to recognize how intellectual property rights have
contributed to the advancement of science and to innovations in medicine and public
health. The recently developed COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics were discovered
based on years of research supported by intellectual property rights"
rights .
"We trust that the discussions being held at the WTO TRIPS Council will (1) find an
appropriate global approach to contribute to solving the problems posed by the
current pandemic, while (2) balancing the right of all to have access to health services
and supplies with other stakeholders’ rights and (3) safeguarding, with a long-term view,
the system that has proven effective in nurturing innovation and enabled the world to
achieve a stage of technological development advanced enough successfully to
develop, produce and deploy multiple state-of-the-art responses to pressing global
challenges in record time, as we all have recently witnessed".
(From the position paper , 2021-05-12 )
TRIPS waiver proposal on COVID-19

Compulsory licenses: exception/limitation to patent rights
According to a WIPO survey,
survey 87 states indicated provisions in their national legislation that
allow, in general, the government and/or third parties, under certain circumstances and
conditions, to use a patented invention without the authorization of the right holder,
typically with the public policy objectives of balancing of interests,
interests preventing abuses of rights,
rights
and promoting the public interest at large.
Grounds for the grant of compulsory license:
- Non-working or insufficient working
(i) Does importation constitute “working” of the patent? Importation of patented products into at least one
Member State of the EU,
EU EEA or WTO is considered “working”
working of the patented invention.
invention
(ii) In most states, the time period during which compulsory licenses may not be granted on this ground is
three years from the date of the grant of the patent or four years from the filing date of the application.
(iii) In the majority of states it is possible to justify such non-working with legitimate reasons.
- Refusal by the patentee to grant licenses on “reasonable terms and conditions”

- Anti-competitive practices
- Dependent patents
- National
N ti l emergency or circumstances
i t off extreme
t urgency
WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (Geneva, November 3 to 7, 2014)

Are compulsory licenses used? - Spain as example
With reference to the number of times and the technological areas in which
compulsory licenses had been issued, most of the states stated that they were
not aware of such court decisions, had no data available or that no
compulsory licenses have been granted in their territory.
territory Few Member States
reported that compulsory licenses had been very seldom used and in very few
cases related to pharmaceuticals.
España: Ley 24/2015, de 24 de julio, de Patentes

(en la Ley 11/1986, en Arts. 83-107, el último titulado "Promoción de la solicitud de licencias obligatorias)
Título IX. Obligación de explotar y licencias obligatorias

Capítulo I. Obligación de explotar la invención y requisitos para la concesión de licencias obligatorias.
Art. 90. Obligación de explotar.

Art. 91. Supuestos de concesión de licencias obligatorias.
Art 92.
Art. 92 Licencias obligatorias por falta o insuficiencia de explotación
explotación.
Art. 93. Licencias obligatorias por dependencia.
Art. 94. Licencias obligatorias para poner remedio a prácticas anticompetitivas.
Art. 95. Licencias obligatorias por motivos de interés público.
Art. 96. Licencias obligatorias para la fabricación de medicamentos destinados a
países con problemas de salud pública.
Capítulo II. Procedimiento de concesión de las licencias obligatorias (Arts. 97, 98 y 99)
Capítulo III. Régimen de las licencias obligatorias (Arts. 100 y 101)
'Government use': an exception/limitation to patent rights
In Australia,
Australia Austria,
Austria Brazil
Brazil, Canada,
Canada China,
China Finland,
Finland France,
France Greece,
Greece India,
India
Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
the Russian Federation, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of
America (up to 62 states in total)
America... total). Note that Japan,
Japan Germany,
Germany Italy or Spain are
not in the list.
The laws contain provisions that, in general, entitle the government, or a third
party who is authorized by the government, to use the patented invention
without authorization of the patentee under certain circumstances of public
interest such as national security,
security national emergency,
emergency nutrition,
nutrition health or the
development of other vital sectors of the national economy ...
Most states p
provide that the g
government use is subject
j to
the payment of a “fair remuneration” . I want
your
The vast majority of states responded that the
patent
applicable legal framework for the issuance
of government use was considered adequate.
However, in most states the government
However
use exception has never been invoked
WIPO St
Standing
di CCommittee
itt on th
the L
Law off P
Patents
t t
(Geneva, November 3 to 7, 2014)
Patent documents published on Covid-19 vaccines
None of them refers to vaccines approved by EMA (search done on 2021-05-10)

Prize to pioneer work on bringing mRNA into cells

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (tozinameran)
The Bi
Th BioNTech
NT h technology
t h l for
f the
th BNT162b2 vaccine
i iis based
b d on use off nucleoside-
l id
modified mRNA (modRNA) which encodes a mutated form of the full-length spike
protein found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, triggering an immune response
against
i t infection
i f ti byb th
the virus
i protein.
t i
The modRNA sequence of the vaccine is 4,284 nucleotides long, and it contains no
uridine residues; they are replaced by 1-methyl-3'-pseudouridylyl.
1 methyl 3 pseudouridylyl.
In addition to mRNA, the vaccine contains the following excipients:
- ALC-0315, ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)
- ALC-0159,
ALC 0159 2 2-[(polyethylene
[( l th l glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
l l) 2000] N N dit t d l t id
- 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DSPC)
- cholesterol
- dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate
- monobasic potassium phosphate
- potassium chloride
- sodium chloride
- sucrose
- water for injection
The first four of these are lipids. The lipids and modRNA together form nanoparticles.
ALC-0159 is a polyethylene glycol conjugate, i.e., a PEGylated lipid.

RNA
tumors

Sahin-Türeci patent on RNA modification (2005)
Not patented in e.g.:

e g : China (CN),
(CN) Russia (RU),
(RU) India (IN)
(IN), SudAfrica (ZA)

Neither Covid-19
nor SARS-CoV-2
is mentioned
(priority 2005)

Sahin-Türeci patent on RNA immunization (2008)
Not patented in e.g.: China (CN), Russia (RU), India (IN), SudAfrica (ZA)

International patent application (PCT) of BioNTech on RNA
vaccines, claimingg priority
p y of a 2008 German application
pp

Can be a vaccine, but
neither Covid-19 nor
SARS-CoV-2 is mentioned
(priority 2008)

Frontt page off the
F th first
fi t European
E
Patent of BioNTech on RNA
vaccines (1/2)

Front page of the first European Patent of BioNTech
on RNA vaccines (2/2)
Claims of the first EP of BioNTech on RNA vaccines (1/2)

Claims of the first EP of BioNTech on RNA vaccines (2/2)

EPC countries where EP 2370101 B1 has been validated
countries of
validation
(LI & CH go
together)

Validation of EP 2370101 B1 in Spain (BioNTech vaccine)

Validation of EP 2370101 B1 in Spain (BioNTech vaccine)

First Japanese Patent of BioNTech on RNA vaccines

First Japanese Patent of BioNTech on RNA vaccines

49 EUA = Emergency Use Authorization (FDA) Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Bebidas de avena comercializadas en España y fabricadas por LIQUATS,
sin p
permiso de OATLY A.B. (Suecia)
( ) ni de su distribuidora española
p
BIOCOP Productos Biológicos S.A.
LIQUATS SANTIVERI SANTÉ IBERIA PAGESA

SJM Bcn-4 2014-04-11, Oatly vs. 5 empr. españolas; leche
de avena; product-by-process
ANTECEDENTES DE HECHO
PRIMERO.- El procedimiento se inició mediante demanda presentada el día 3/4/2013 en la que
la demandante [OATLY] sostiene que las demandadas han infringido la patente de la que
es titular ES 2154684 (ES’684), por lo que solicita que se declare tal infracción y se
condene a las demandadas, a cesar en los actos infractores y a indemnizar los daños y
perjuicios ocasionados.../...
/
FUNDAMENTOS DE DERECHO
Hechos no controvertidos. PRIMERO.- Son hechos relevantes p para resolver el p
presente litigio
g
y no controvertidos por las partes los siguientes:
.../...
FALLO: Desestimo la demanda p presentada ppor el p
procurador D. Ignacio
g López,
p en
representación de OATLY AB, en consecuencia debo absolver a LIQUATS VEGETALS, S.A,
CASA SANTIVERI, S.L. y NUTRITION & SANTE IBERIA, S.L., condenado a la actora al pago
de las costas.
RECURSOS.- Contra esta sentencia cabe interponer recurso de apelación en el plazo de
veinte días ante este Juzgado, para su resolución por la Audiencia Provincial.
----------------------------
SAP Bcn-15 2016-02-02 (recurso contra SJM Bcn-4 2014-04-11)
FALLAMOS: Desestimamos el recurso de apelación interpuesto por Oatly, A.B., con imposición
d costas
de t a lla recurrente.
t C Contra
t lla presente
t resolución
l ió podrá
d á iinterponerse
t recurso d
de casación.
ió
51 Sentencia firme Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

52 España, Septiembre 2019 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Anuncio en España
53 España, Septiembre 2019 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

España, Septiembre 2019

Muchas personas inteligentes -periodistas, entre ellas- sufren
malentendidos en materia de p patentes y know-how

Old
C
Current
t

Los "Chups" (luego
p
llamados "Chupa
Chups") de Enric
Bernat se venden en
150 países

Patente nº 70.454 de José Segura, fabricante madrileño de golosinas (1919)

La primera patente española de la LP concedida a partir de una solicitud
presentada en la OEPM (entonces RPI), RPI) en virtud de la Ley 11/1986,
11/1986 de 20
de marzo, de Patentes [publicada en BOE de 26 de marzo; en vigor a partir
del 26 de junio]. En la ley anterior (Estatuto de la Propiedad Industrial) los
productos alimentarios estaban excluidos de patentabilidad.
Patente española ES 2.000.011

Actimel© es la marca comercial bajo la que se comercializan una serie de
productos lácteos probióticos producidos por la empresa francesa DanoneDanone.
Estos alimentos fermentados se venden líquidos (con aspecto de yogur) en
botellas de contenido de 100 ml y distintas agrupaciones
g p ((de 8, 6 o 4 botellitas de
plástico) y a veces con sabores.
En algunos mercados como el de US y Canadá se comercializa este mismo
producto bajo la denominación DanActive©.
El principal beneficio que se le atribuye es ayudar a las defensas del organismo,
gracias a que contiene una bacteria exclusiva de la empresa (Danone DN-114
001) a la que denominan Lactobacillus casei imunitass (también llamada L.
casei defensis en algunos países de Latinoamérica). Además posee los
cultivos lácticos tradicionales de los y
yogures:
g Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. p
bulgaricus y Streptococcus thermophilus.

WO96/20607
EP validada en
E
España:
ñ
ES2126962 T3

L. Casei DN-114 001
Cepas de LAC, en especial, L. paracasei subsp. paracasei DN-

114 001 (protección de producto per se)

Let's not start building a house from the roof !
special types of patent claims
patents
Intellectual
P
Propertyt
Rights (IPR)

PROGRAM
- Overview on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
- Subject matter of patent protection: the claims
- Patenting policies and procedures
- Patent documents and their legal status
- Patent information retrieval
- Patent infringement
- Inventorship, priority and patentability
- Examples of food patents

LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (1/2)
AIA [Leahy-Smith]
y America Invents Act ((Spanish
p ones in italics))
API active pharmaceutical ingredient
CAFC [US] Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit
CCP Certificado Complementario de Protección (cf. SPC)
37 CFR 37 Code of Federal Regulations [US patent regulation]
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
CNIPA China National Intellectual Property Administration
CPC C
Community it Patent
P t t Convention
C ti
CPC Cooperative Patent Classification
DCI Denominación Común Internacional (cf. INN)
ECJ E
European Court
C t off J
Justice
ti
EEA European Economic Area
EMA European Medicines Agency
EPC European Patent Convention (CPE)
EPO European Patent Office (OEP)
EU European Union (UE)
EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FIG. Figure (Figura)
INID code Internationally agreed Number for Identification of Data
INN International Non-propietary Name (cf. DCI)
IP Intellectual Property (PI)
IPC International Patent Classification
IPR Intellectual Property Right
M t relevant
Most l t here,
h in
i red
d color
l
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (2/2)
JPO Japanese Patent Office ((Spanish
p ones in italics))
KIPO Korean Intellectual Property Office
LP2015 [España] Ley de Patentes de 2015
MPEP Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
OEPM Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas
OTRI Oficina de Transferencia de Resultados de Investigación (cf. TTO)
PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty
PHOSITA person having
h i ordinary
di skill
kill in
i the
th artt
PI [ES] Propiedad Intelectual-Industrial (cf. IP)
PLT Patent Law Treaty
RLP2015 [ES] Reglamento
R l t de
d la
l Ley
L de d Patentes
P t t de d 2015
SEQ. ID. NO. Sequence Identification Number
SPC Supplementary Protection Certificate (CCP)
TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (ADPIC)
Trade-Related
TT Technology Transfer
TTO Technology Transfer Office (cf. OTRI)
UP Unitary Patent
UPC Unified Patent Court
UPCA Unified Patent Court Agreement
35 USC 35 United States Code [US Patent Law]
USPTO United States Patent & Trademark Office
WHO World Health Organization (OMS)
WIPO p y Organization
World Intellectual Property g ((OMPI))
WTO World Trade Organization (OMC)
Most relevant here, in red color
Intellectual Property as a human right?
The right
Th i ht to
t science
i and
d culture
lt i expressed
is d iin Article
A ti l 27 off th
the U
Universal
i l
Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948):
...
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which
he is the author.
__________________________________________________________________
The right
Th i ht to
t science
i and
d culture
lt also
l appears iin Article
A ti l 15 off th
the IInternational
t ti l
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1966):
(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
...
(c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting
f
from any scientific,
i tifi literary
lit or artistic
ti ti production
d ti off which
hi h he
h is
i the
th author.
th
The latter clause is sometimes seen as requiring the protection of intellectual

property, but the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights interprets it as
primarily protecting the moral rights of authors ... The material rights are
interpreted as being part of the right to an adequate standard of living, and "need not
extend over the entire lifespan of an author."
Terminology: "intellectual property" & "propiedad intelectual"
IIntellectual
t ll t l propertyt (IP) is
i a category
t off property
t that
th t includes
i l d intangible
i t ibl
creations of the human intellect... The term began to be used in the 19th
century, though it was not until the late 20th century that IP became
commonplace in the majority of the world's legal systems...
The administrative secretariats established by the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) merged in 1893 ... It was
succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the World Intellectual Property
O
Organization
i ti (WIPO) by b ttreatyt as an agency off the th United
U it d Nations...
N ti It was only l att
this point that the term really began to be used internationally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La propiedad intelectual (PI) , en un sentido estrictamente jurídico, es lo protegido
por las leyes de PI, y cualquier producción intelectual no explícitamente recogida
por la legislación no puede ser considerada PI ...
Para la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) cualquier
creación de la mente humana es parte de la PI... La delimitación de qué constituye
una PI depende de las legislaciones y está sometida a continua renovación...
Según del bien que trate la PI se divide en propiedad Industrial y derechos de
Autor
Autor...
[Fuente: Wikipedia en inglés y en español; 2019]
Name of the common
"trunk":
Intellectual Property (IP)
Propriété Intellectuelle
Geistiges Eigentum
How is it in Spanish?
Names of the two IP

"branches":
Industrial Property
p y
Propriété Industrielle
Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz
Copyright
Droits d'Auteur
Urheberrecht
73 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
In English ...
htt //
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/895/wipo_pub_895.pdf
i i t/ d / bd / /i t t /895/ i b 895 df
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/es/intproperty/895/wipo_pub_895.pdf
In Spanish
p ...
H
How iis it in
i Castilian-Spanish?
C tili S i h?
www.aippi.org
www.aippi.es
pp
Wrong !
Wrong !
En España -a diferencia de en Hispanoamérica- no tenemos un término para
referirnos a lo que se llama intellectual property en inglés, propriété
intellectuelle en francés y geistiges Eigentum en alemán
alemán. Así nos vemos
obligados a usar la expresión "propiedad industrial e intelectual" (o al revés)
'Propiedad
Propiedad industrial'
industrial SEMANTIC PROBLEM! :
corresponds to industrial 'Propiedad Intelectual'
property corresponds
p onlyy to
NO PROBLEM! copyright and neighbouring
rights [derechos de autor]

Legislación histórica sobre derechos de autor en ES
1879 Ley sobre Propiedad Intelectual
1886 Convenio de Berna para la protección de las obras literarias y artísticas
1952 Convención Universal de Ginebra sobre los derechos de autor
1967 Convenio por el que se establece la Organización Mundial de la
Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI)
Art. 2. Definiciones. (viii) "Propiedad Intelectual" son los derechos
España no relativos a:
cumple el - obras literarias y artísticas
Convenio de - interpretaciones, fonogramas, emisiones de radiodifusión
la OMPI - descubrimientos científicos
p
respecto al - invenciones
término - dibujos y modelos industriales (diseños industriales)
"propiedad - marcas
intelectual"
intelectual - protección contra la competencia desleal
- y todos los relativos a la actividad intelectual en los terrenos
industrial, científico, literario y artístico
1987 Ley de Propiedad Intelectual
1996 RDL texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual
(actualmente vigente,
vigente con una última modificación en 2020-05-06)

Artículo de divulgación [no de investigación] publicado en 2001, escrito
particularmente para la formación de jueces españoles de patentes
ADI Tomo
ADI, T XXII,
XXII 2001,
2001 págs.
á 455-484
455 484
La revista más especializada de España no

78 usa "propiedad intelectual" en su títuloPascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
La propiedad intelectual e industrial en la
Constitución Española de 1978
Art. 20.1. Se reconocen y protegen los derechos: ... (b) A la producción y
creación literaria,
literaria artística,
artística científica y técnica.
técnica
Art. 33.1. Se reconoce el derecho a la propiedad privada y a la herencia.
Art. 38. Se reconoce la libertad de empresa en el marco de la economía
de mercado...
Art. 96.1. Los tratados internacionales válidamente celebrados, una vez
publicados oficialmente en España, formarán parte del ordenamiento
interno.
interno
Art. 139.2. Ninguna autoridad podrá adoptar medidas que directa o
indirectamente obstaculicen la libertad de circulación y establecimiento de las
personas y la libre circulación de bienes en todo el territorio español.
Art. 149
Art 149.1.
1 El Estado tiene compentencia exclusiva sobre las siguientes
materias: ...
9ª. Legislación sobre propiedad intelectual e industrial
9
[ No se mencionan explícitamente los
79 derechos de patentes, marcas, etc. ] Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
La propiedad intelectual en el Código Civil español
LIBRO SEGUNDO: De los bienes
bienes, de la propiedad y de sus modificaciones
TÍTULO I: De la clasificación de los bienes
Art. 333. Todas las cosas que son o pueden ser objeto de apropiación se consideran como
bienes muebles o inmuebles.
Art. 337. Los bienes muebles son fungibles o no fungibles. A la primera especie pertenecen
aquellos de que no puede hacerse el uso adecuado a su naturaleza sin que se consuman; a la
segundad especie
i corresponden
d llos d demás.
á
Art. 338. Los bienes son de dominio público o de propiedad privada.
TÍTULO II: De la propiedad
p p
CAPÍTULO I. De la propiedad en general
Art. 348. La propiedad es el derecho de gozar y disponer de una cosa, sin más limitaciones que
las establecidas en las leyes.
TÍTULO IV: De algunas propiedades especiales
CAPÍTULO I. De las aguas
CAPÍTULO II.II De los minerales
CAPÍTULO III. De la propiedad intelectual
Art. 428. El autor de una obra literaria, científica o artística, tiene el derecho de explotarla
y disponer de ella a su voluntad.
Art. 429. La Ley sobre Propiedad Intelectual determina las personas a quienes pertenece
ese derecho, la forma de su ejercicio y el tiempo de su duración. En casos no previstos
ni resueltos ppor dicha ley
y especial
p se aplicarán
p las reglas
g generales
g establecidas en este
Código sobre la propiedad.
RD 1889.07.24 por el que se publica el Código Civil. Última actualización: 2018.08.04
http://www uda ad/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/130208%20reglament%20UdA-Final pdf
http://www.uda.ad/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/130208%20reglament%20UdA-Final.pdf
"Drets de propietat intel.lectual" in Catalan-Valencian-Balear does not

correspondd to
t "Intellectual
"I t ll t l Property
P t Rights"
Ri ht " (IPR) in
i English
E li h or "Droit
"D it de
d
Propriété Intellectuelle" in French. It means "Copyright and neighboring
rights"
g or "Droit d'Auteur et droits voisins"

Most important IP Rights (IPR) Protected subject-matter (time)
________________________________ _________________________________
copyright and neighbouring rights creative works (> 70 year)

[ title]
[no titl ] computer
t programs
databases
trademarks and tradenames distinctiveness (for life,
life if used & paid for)
geographical indications distinctiveness from origin or

protected designations of origin manufacture process. Not private
protected geographical indications
[no title] protection against unfair competition
industrial designs (2D & 3D) non-functional

non functional appearance
(design patents in US) (CN 10; US, KR 15; JP 20; EU 25 year)
t d secrets
trade t undisclosed
di l d know
k how
h
(& undisclosed business information)
patents & utility models technology// invention / claim (20/10

( / year))
We are
here!
The patent system only distinguishes between humans,

animals plants and 'microorganisms'
animals, microorganisms
Plant classifications and a few tomato varieties

What is a plant variety (according to UPOV Convention)?
The UPOV Convention definition of a plant variety starts by stating that it is "a
a plant
grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, ..." This confirms that a
plant variety results from the lowest sub-division of the species. However, to
understand more completely what a plant variety is is, the UPOV Convention (Article 1(vi))
defines it as:
"a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which
grouping, irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a breeder's right are
fully met, can be
- defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype or
combination of genotypes,
- distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the
said characteristics and
- considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged;"
This full definition clarifies that a variety must be recognizable by its characteristics,
recognizably different from any other variety and remain unchanged through the process of
propagation. If a plant variety grouping does not meet these criteria, it is not considered to
be a variety within the UPOV system. However, the definition also makes clear that this is
i
irrespective
ti off whether
h th the th conditions
diti for
f the
th grantt off a breeder's
b d ' right
i ht are fully
f ll mett
and this is not, as such, a condition for determining if a variety is eligible for protection.
The conditions for protection of a variety are:
new, distinct,
di ti t uniform
if andd stable
t bl
Angers

Protección de las obtenciones vegetales en España
Título Preliminar
(Arts. 1-4) de la
Leyy 3/2000,, de
régimen jurídico
de la protección
de obtenciones
vegetales (ES)
Protección del derecho

de obtentor de una
variedad vegetal,
mediante el título de
obtención vegetal
g

35 U.S.C. CHAPTER 15 - PLANT PATENTS
35 U.S.C. 161 Patents for plants.
Whoever invents or discovers and asexually y reproduces
p anyy distinct and new
variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found
seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated
state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of
this title.
The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for
plants, except as otherwise provided.
(Amended Sept. 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190.)
35 U.S.C. 162 Description, claim.

No plant patent shall be declared invalid for noncompliance with section 112
(Specification = description + claims) if the description is as complete as is
reasonably possible.
The claim in the specification shall be in formal terms to the plant shown and
described.
(A
(Amended
d dSSept.
t 16
16, 2011
2011, P
Public
bli LLaw 112
112-29,
29 sec. 20(j) ((effective
ff ti S Sept.
t 16
16, 2012)
2012), 125 St
Stat.
t 284
284.))

May 2016
35 U.S.C. 163 Grant.
In the case of a plant patent, the grant shall include the right to exclude others
from asexually reproducing the plant, and from using, offering for sale, or
selling the plant so reproduced, or any of its parts, throughout the United
States, or from importing the plant so reproduced, or any parts thereof, into the
United States.
(Amended Oct. 27, 1998, Public Law 105-289, sec. 3, 112 Stat. 2781.)
35 U.S.C. 164 Assistance of the Department of

Agriculture.
The President may by Executive order direct the Secretary of Agriculture
Agriculture, in
accordance with the requests of the Director, for the purpose of carrying into effect
the provisions of this title with respect to plants (1) to furnish available information of
th Department
the D t t off Agriculture,
A i lt (2) to
t conduct
d t through
th h the
th appropriate
i t bureau
b or
division of the Department research upon special problems, or (3) to detail to the
Director officers and employees of the Department.
(Amended Nov. 29, 1999, Public Law 106-113, sec. 1000(a)(9), 113 Stat. 1501A-582 (S. 1948 sec.
4732(a)(10)(A)).)

May 2016
In a commercial product several IP rights
((IPRs)) may
y coexist design
current logo
derived trademark
trademark
technology of
inserted
chocolate layers
Copyright
py g p protects e.g.
g ppackaging.
g g Unfair competion
p
(competencia desleal) law protects e.g. trade dress.
trademark
derechos de autor
(Salvador Dalí)
marca de forma

razón
social
(R i t
(Registro
Mercantil)
indicación
d cac ó geog
geográfica
á ca
marca
secreto industrial o
know how

In drugs industrial design is usually unimportant. Patents are the most
important IPRs at the beginning. But, when patents lapse, trademarks
b
become the
th mostt valuable
l bl IPR,
IPR if nott the
th only
l one
trademarks
active
ti pharmaceutical
h ti l
ingredient + excipients = drug
company name (razón social)
Technology
Unregistered IPRs are always present

Commercial products may involve several IPR
Marca
Diseño industrial
Tecnología (2D y 3D)
 patente?

IPR as a protection of economic investment
- IPR are configured as a special kind of private property, a feature that
facilitates their transfer (sale, license, etc.).
- IPR provide exclusivities via the protection against imitation of certain
kind of information (the subject-matter of the property) which is
associated
i t d tto economic
i iinvestment.
t t
- The exclusivity right lies in the possibility of excluding private third
parties
ti from
f certain
t i activities
ti iti (ius hib di) IPRs
(i prohibendi). IPR do
d nott go against
i t
free competition, and they do not involve any authorization,
certification or standardization from any kind of administration
administration.
- IPR constantly develop to protect economic investments which would
not be made in their absence
absence.
- IPR are only important when what is protected has
i d t i l/
industrial/commercial
i l success, as only
l th
then attempts
tt t off imitation
i it ti byb
third parties would arise.
- In economy IPR  intangible assets
In 1961 Rafael Marquina
designed an anti-dropping cruet
(small flat-bottomed vessel with a
narrow neck) that was awarded the
D l d
Delta de O Oro ADI
ADI-FAD.
FAD ButB
neither its technology (by
patent or utility model),
model) nor its
shape (by industrial design)
were protected
protected.
Later, when it was commercially
successful,
f l the
th trademark
t d k
"vinagrera-anti-goteo" ("anti-
dropping cruet") was applied
for, but it was not granted.
Thus, many legal imitations
appeared on the market...

Legal imitation of design and technology is socially desirable (e.g. generic
& biosimilar medicines, equivalents to but cheaper than patented ones)

Copyright and 'neighbouring
neighbouring rights
rights'
("propiedad intelectual" in Spain)
The protection of creative works
They are unregistered IPRs, born with the creation of the work. But, to
b enforceable
be f bl in
i case off conflict,
fli t a right
i ht mustt be
b proven before
b f a court.
t
Some infringing activities
Bootlegging:
Unauthorized recordings of live performances
Piracy:
Pi
Illegal copying of music products
Counterfeiting:
Illegal copying of both, the music products and of its
packaging
Plagiarism:
Theft of another person
person’s
s writings or expressed ideas
1
UNESCO 2010 - en docum

docum. complementaria
http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/C
LT/diversity/pdf/WAPO/ABC_Copyright_en.pdf Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
109
110
An infringement of
T-shirt sold in Carcassone (France)
a moral right ... and
a mockery
k off IPR!
Copyright registration to prove the entitlement to the
right, when publication has not been occurred yet
Contrary to the Patent & Trademark Office, which is

centralized, the Copyright Registration Office is
112 usually 'de-localized'Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
"Top manta" sales are
a clear
l example
l off
flagrant
infringement of
copyrighted-material
and/or flagrant
trademark
infringement
(counterfeiting).
It is persecuted by the
police and the
criminal
i i l courts.
t

Does anybody
need to
understand
Russian in order
to recognize this
beverage?

Three trademark systems coexist in EU countries
National Trademark (Service Marks, Tradenames...)

'I t
'International
ti l Trademark'
T d k' (Madrid
(M d id A
Agreement)
t)
EU Trade Mark (formerly CMT)
The protection of distinctiveness
A trade mark is a distinctive sign, usually in the from of brand

name but
b alsol iin other
h fforms such h as picture,
i signature
i , colour,
l
numeral, shape, configuration or a pattern used in order to
di ti
distinguish
i h signs,
i used
d tto diff
differentiate
ti t between
b t identical
id ti l or
similar goods and services, different producers, or services
providers.
providers

Trademark types
® Words or word combinations (e.g. ADIDAS)

® Graphics, numbers, symbols, drawings... (without words)
® Mixed: Words + graphics
graphics, numbers
numbers, symbols,
symbols drawings
drawings...
® 2D- or 3D-shapes
® 'Unfrequent TMs' (colors, sounds, flavors...) are difficult to be

represented graphically.
E.g. At the EUIPO (Alicante) this color has been

accepted as a TM for a chocolate
chocolate. Which one?
Coca-Cola bottle is a 3D-CMT... but only with fluting
On 2016-02-24, the EU General Court dismissed an action of the Coca-Cola Company y and
confirmed the decisions of OHIM and the Board of Appeal (case R 540/2013-2) by ruling that the
known shape of the contour bottle of Coca-Cola without fluting (acanaladuras) lacks
distinctive character and is thus not registerable as a 3D-Community trademark (GC
decision T-411/14).
Coca-Cola is the owner of a handful of registered 3D-CMTs showing the shapes of bottles, in
particular the famous contour bottle with fluting (acanaladuras). Even the application for
protection of this bottle with fluting was initially refused by OHIM. However, the BA finally found
that “in particular, the presence in the bottle’s body of the flutes which cross the interrupted
horizontal lines confers on the whole signg an appearance
pp which is striking
g and easy
y to remember”
(case R 525/2013-2, para. 26) and allowed the mark for Registration.
CTM 010532653; registered

g for goods
g of CTM 010532687; registered
g for goods
g of
classes 6, 21 and 32 classes 6, 21 and 32, now found invalid
M. Ring, http://kluwertrademarkblog.com/2016/03/08/share-a-coke-but-only-with-fluting/
EUIPO building
g in Alicante

Through own
experiences and
publicity, every
consumer develops
'trademark fidelities'
Trademarks are also

importants for drugs,
particularly for over
over-the-
the
counter (OTC) drugs

Top 20 of BrandZ Top 100 Most
Valuable Global Brands 2018
The only Spanish ones in the Top 100
121 https://www.rankingthebrands.com/The- Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

Brand-Rankings.aspx?rankingID=6
A ranking of most valuable global brands in
1993

'generic names' of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)

EU Trade Mark (CTM) (1)
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council, of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark
(codification of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, which was codified as
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, this being amended several times)
Article 4. Signs of which an EU trade mark may consist

An EU trade mark may consist of any signs, in particular words, including personal
names, or designs,
d i lletters,
tt numerals,
l colours,
l th
the shape
h off goods
d or off th
the
packaging of goods, or sounds, provided that such signs are capable of:
(a) distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other
undertakings; and
( ) being
(b) g represented
p on the Register
g of EU ((‘the Register’),
g ) in a manner which
enables the competent authorities and the public to determine the clear and
precise subject matter of the protection afforded to its proprietor.
Article 6. Means whereby a EU trade mark is obtained

A EU trade mark shall be obtained by
y registration.
g

Article 7. Absolute grounds for refusal
1. The following
g shall not be registered:
g
(a) signs which do not conform to the requirements of Article 4;
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may
serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose,
value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering
of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service;
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have
become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and
established practices of the trade;
(e) signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape, or another characteristic,
which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape, or another
characteristic of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result;(iii) the
characteristic,
shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods;

Example of a (failed) attempt to extend IP
protection by
p y conversion of an industrial
design into a shape trademark
Remington's
R i t '
Art. 7.1 EU TM Regulation. The following shall not be shaver (2005)
registered: ... (e) Signs which consist exclusively of:
... (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods
which is necessary to obtain a technical result (ECJ,
case C-299/99, 18.06.2002, "Phillips vs. Remington").
(f) trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of
morality;
((g)) ttrade
d marks
k which
hi h are off such
h a nature
t as to
t deceive
d i the
th public,
bli for
f instance
i t
as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service; ...
(j) trade marks which are excluded from registration
registration, pursuant to Union legislation
or national law or to international agreements to which the Union or the Member State
concerned is party, providing for protection of designations of origin and
geographical indications;
(k) trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation
or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of
traditional terms for wine;
(l) trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation
or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of
traditional specialities guaranteed;
(m) trade marks which consist of of, or reproduce in their essential elements
elements, an
earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation
or national law, or international agreements ...

1. The following shall not be registered: (f) trade
marks which are contrary to public policy or to
accepted principles of morality; (Art. 7.1f Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
128
Community Trade Mark Regulation)
Article 8. Relative grounds for refusal
1. Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark,
1 mark the trade mark
applied for shall not be registered:
( ) if it is identical with the earlier trade mark and the g
(a) goods or services for
which registration is applied for are identical with the goods or services for
which the earlier trade mark is protected;
(b) if,
if bbecause off its
it id
identity
tit with,
ith or similarity
i il it to,t the
th earlier
li trade
t d mark k and d
the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in
which the earlier trade mark is protected; the likelihood of confusion includes
the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, ‘earlier trade mark’ means:

(a) trade marks of the following kinds with a date of application for registration
which is earlier than the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark,
taking account, where appropriate, of the priorities claimed in respect of those
trade marks: ...

Article 9.
9 Rights conferred by an EU trade mark
1.The registration ... shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein.
2. Without prejudice to the rights of proprietors acquired before the filing date or the
2
priority date of the EU trade mark, the proprietor of that EU trade mark shall be entitled
to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of
trade, in relation to goods or services, any sign where:
(a) the sign is identical with the EU trade mark and is used in relation to goods or
services which are identical with those for which the EU trade mark is registered;
(b) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the EU trade mark and is used in relation
to g
goods or services which are identical with,, or similar to,, the goods
g or services for
which the EU trade mark is registered, if there exists a likelihood of confusion on the
part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association
between the sign and the trade mark;
(c) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the EU trade mark irrespective of whether
it is used in relation to ggoods or services which are identical with,, similar to or
not similar to those for which the EU trade mark is registered, where the latter has a
reputation in the Union and where use of that sign without due cause takes
unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute
of the EU trade mark. .../...
Reputed trademarks (marcas renombradas) have an
extra protection (cf.
(cf Art.
Art 9.2.(c)
9 2 (c) EU Reg.
Reg 2017/1001)

Does a trademark registration grant an
g to use the mark?
absolute right
Original Imitation, but not counterfeiting
I
N
F
R
I
N
G
E
M
E
N
T
?

133 Drug counterfeiting Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Safe sale of
medicines on
the Internet in
the EU
Only of over the

counter (OTC)
drugs for the
time being (mid
2015)

More than 20
year ago some
CAVA llabels
b l
included
"méthode
champenoise"
Nowadays only
"método tradicional"
can be mentioned
mentioned.
This is seldom done,
as CAVA itself is a
geographical
indication (PDO)

What is "cava" ?
"Cava"" iis a sparkling
"C kli winei off DDenominación
i ió dde O
Origen
i (DO)
status. It may be white or rosé. The macabeu, parellada and
xarelꞏlo are the most popular and traditional grape varieties for
producing cava. Only wines produced in the champenoise
traditional method may be labelled "cava"; those produced by
other p
processes may y only
y be called "sparkling
p g wines" ((vinos
espumosos).
In the past, cava was referred to as "Spanish champagne", which
i no llonger permitted
is itt d under
d E European UUnion
i llaw, since
i
Champagne has Protected Geographical Status (PGS) and
Spain entered the EU in 1986.
About 95% of all cava is produced in the Penedès area in
Catalonia, with the village of Sant Sadurní d'Anoia being home
t many off Spain's
to S i ' largest
l t production
d ti h houses. Th
The ttwo major
j
producers are Codorníu® and Freixenet®. Cava is also
produced in other villages in Aragon, Castile and León,
Extremadura, La Rioja, Basque Country, Navarre, and
Valencia.
https://en wikipedia org/wiki/Cava (Spanish wine) , 2017-05-02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cava_(Spanish_wine) 2017 05 02

There are
cavas that
are not
Catalan, but
they only
represent
approx. 5%
of total
production

Border between the
Crown of Castile
(i l di M
(including Murcia)
i ) and
d
the Crown of Aragon
(including Valencia)
according to the
Almizra Treaty,
signed on 1244.04.26
The Reconquest
((La Reconquista)
q )
718-1492
Cava can be
made in Requena
(but not in
Almansa).
Ayora & Alpera
wines have no
PDO
https://www.europapress.es/castilla
https://www europapress es/castilla-lamancha/noticia-bodegas-balmoral-alpera-afronta-
lamancha/noticia bodegas balmoral alpera afronta
semana-decisiva-erigirse-mejor-bodega-ano-verema-20180128110834.html (2019-10)
P t ti off distinctiveness
Protection di ti ti based
b d on origin
i i or manufacture
f t
GIs are part of IPR

IPR, although they
are rights without private owners,
and they cannot be transferred
142 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
GIs are an important asset
Geographical names can be used in the market with the

following meanings:
- Simple indication of source: indicates the origin
- Geographical indication: indicates the origin + quality
Consumers are constantly faced with the problem of choosing.
Differentiation is a key element in any commercial strategy.
GIs may become an excellent tool to differentiate products and

attract purchases

This "turrón
turrón de Alicante
Alicante",, made in
Jijona (Alicante), is a PGI (almonds
and honey do not come from
Alicante necessarily)
Univ. Alicante
Example of conflict between GIs and trademarks
Decision ECJ 14.09.2007, case C-405/06P,

Miguel Torres S.A. vs. OHIM
(Alexander von Muehlendahl 2008)

Parmigiano Reggiano
Decision ECJ 26.02.2008,
case C-132/05, Commission
vs. Germany
(slide borrowed from Alexander von

Muehlendahl 2008)

The consumer
does not decide to
buy because
"Cabrabo" is a
famous winery

"white brand" = generic name + name [or TM ] of the supermarket

Trade dress is one the most important assets protected by Unfair
Competion (by "passing-of" in countries with unregistered TMs)

Examples of packaging
imitating the trade dress
of others: It might be
difficult to decide on
infringement
g in
borderline situations

THE GREAT UNKNOWN !!
Doing nothing, trade dress, business methods, publicity, etc.

off a company or its
it products
d t
are automatically protected by legislation against
UNFAIR COMPETITION
(COMPETENCIA DESLEAL)
an IPR contemplated by Art. 10.bis of Paris Convention, and

d
developped
l dbby N
National
ti lLLaws. E
E.g. iin S
Spain
i bby L
Law 3/1991
3/1991,
modified by Law 29/2009 of 30 December, which incorporates
some aspects of protection of consumers and publicity

Unfair Competition
Article 10bis - Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
(1) The countries of the Union are bound to assure to nationals of such
countries effective protection against unfair competition.
(2) Any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or
commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition
competition.
(3) The following in particular shall be prohibited:
1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever
with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of
a competitor;
2 false allegations in the course of trade of such a nature as to discredit the
2.
establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a
competitor;
3. indications or allegations the use of which in the course of trade is liable to
mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the
characteristics the suitability for their purpose
characteristics, purpose, or the quantity
quantity, of the goods
goods.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of March 20, 1883, as revised at Brussels on
December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June
2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September
28, 1979
¿QUÉ ACTOS PUEDEN RESULTAR COMPETENCIA DESLEAL?
(L 3/1991 d
(Ley de C
Compentencia
t i DDesleal.
l l DiDisposiciones
i i generales)
l )
Art. 2. Ámbito objetivo (en el mercado y con fines concurrenciales)

Art. 4. Ámbito
Á territorial (mercado español)
Art. 5. Cláusula general (Se reputa desleal todo comportamiento que
resulte objetivamente contrario a las exigencias de la buena fe) fe).
Art. 6. Actos de confusión
Art. 7. Actos de engaño
Art. 8. Obsequios, primas y supuestos análogos
Art. 9. Actos de denigración
Art 10.
Art. 10 Actos de comparación
Art. 11. Actos de imitación (si no hay derecho de exclusiva, son libres, pero
pueden ser desleales si genera asociación por parte de los consumidores o
aprovechamiento de la reputación o el esfuerzo ajeno)
Art. 12. Explotación de la reputación ajena
Art 13.
Art. 13 Violación de secretos (divulgación o explotación; no precisa Art Art.2) 2)
Art. 14. Inducción a la infracción contractual
Art. 15. Violación de normas
Art. 16. Discriminación
Art.
155 17. Venta a pérdida Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Examples of packaging
imitating the trade dress
of others: It might be
difficult to decide on
infringement
g in
borderline situations

COCA-COLA has not succeed in registering its red color as a TM
Thus all imitating colas use the same color
Other similarities may be considered infringement

In GB Sainsbury's was obliged to withdraw this line of cola
product under unfair competition law
Original Novartis medicine
Would the sale of the GSK
drugg under the (apparently
( pp y
unregistered) name Voltadol
infringe the registered
trademark Voltaren® of
Novartis? [ probably ]
Would the decision be
different in the hypothetical
case where Voltadol® was
also a registered trademark
but registered later than
Voltaren® ? [ no ]
Would the GSK drug be

considered an infringement
under the unfair competition
law, for being an unlawful
imitation of the trade dress of
the Novartis drug? [ surely ]
Voltadol = GSK medicine assumed to have been launched later than the Novartis one
reference medicine
Novartis GSK co-marketing

Novartis-GSK co marketing
API

generic medicines
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS (design patents in US)
(DISEÑOS INDUSTRIALES)
3D-designs (modelos) and 2D-designs (dibujos)

What is industrial design in real world ?
Industrial design = design of products made by large-scale industry for mass
distribution. Designing such products means, first, planning their structure,
operation and appearance and then planning these to fit efficient
operation,
production, distribution, and selling procedures (Britannica Encl. 2001)
Wh is
What i industrial
i d i l design
d i in i IP ?
- The outward appearance of a product or part of it
which results from lines, contours, colour, shape,
texture, materials and its ornamentation
- It only refers to the appearance of the whole or a part

of a product resulting from the features of,
of in particular
it refers to the ornamental or aesthetic aspects of a
product
- Design makes a product attractive and appealing to

customers and may even be its unique selling point
External appearance/shape vs technology/function

Up to 7 views can be
included in a single
C
Community it d
design
i
Nº : 000047162-0002
registration
Publicación date : 14/10/2003
Applicant : I’m International Co. Ltd.

Some commercial
designs of anti-
drip cruet sets

Community Designs (1)
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs
Article 1 - Community design ...
2 Ad
2. design
i shall
h ll b
be protected:
t t d
(a) by an "unregistered Community design", if made available to the public in the
manner provided for in this Regulation;
(b) by a "registered Community design", if registered in the manner provided for
in this Regulation.
3. A Community design shall have a unitary character. It shall have equal effect
throughout the Community...
Article 3 Definitions. For the purposes of this Regulation:

(a) "design" means the appearance of the whole or a part of a product
resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours,
shape texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation;
shape,
(b) "product" means any industrial or handicraft item, including inter alia parts
intended to be assembled into a complex product, packaging, get-up, graphic
symbols
b l andd typographic
t hi ttypefaces,
f but
b t excluding
l di computer t programs;
(c) "complex product" means a product which is composed of multiple
components which can be replaced permitting disassembly and re-assembly of
the product.
Article 4 - Requirements for protection
1. A design shall be protected by a Community design to the extent
that it is new and has individual character.
2. A design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes
a component part of a complex product shall only be considered
to be new and to have individual character:
( ) if th
(a) the componentt part,
t once it has
h been
b incorporated
i t d iinto
t th
the
complex product, remains visible during normal use of the latter;
and
(b) to the extent that those visible features of the component
part fulfil in themselves the requirements
p q as to noveltyy and
individual character.
3. "Normal use" within the meaning of paragraph (2)(a) shall mean
use by the end user, excluding maintenance, servicing or
repair work.

Article 5 - Novelty
1. A design shall be considered to be new if no identical design has been made
available to the public:
((a)) in the case of an unregistered
g Community y design,
g , before the date on which the
design for which protection is claimed has first been made available to the public; (b)
in the case of a registered Community design, before the date of filing of the
application for registration of the design for which protection is claimed
claimed, or
or, if priority is
claimed, the date of priority.
2. Designs shall be deemed to be identical if their features differ only in immaterial
details.
details
Article 6 - Individual character
1 A design shall be considered to have individual character if the overall impression
1.
it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on
such a user by any design which has been made available to the public: ...
2 IIn assessing
2. i iindividual
di id l character,
h t the
th degree
d off freedom
f d off the
th designer
d i in
i
developing the design shall be taken into consideration.
Article
A ti l 7 - Disclosure...
Di l 1 F
1. For the
th purpose off applying
l i A Articles
ti l 5 and
d66, a d
design
i shall
h ll
be deemed to have been made available to the public... except where these events
could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to
the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the Community.
Shape of pharma tablets can be protected by industrial designs
US design patent

35 U.S.C. - CHAPTER 16 - DESIGNS
35 U.S.C.
U S C 171 Patents for designs.
designs
(a) IN GENERAL.- Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for
an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor
therefor, subject to the conditions
and requirements of this title.
(b) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.
TITLE.- The provisions of this title relating to patents for
inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.
(c) FILING DATE.- The filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the
date on which the specification as prescribed by section 112 and any required
drawings are filed.
35 U.S.C. 172 Right of priority.

The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be
six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e)
shall not apply to designs.
35 U.S.C. 173 Term of design patent.

Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of 15 years from the date of grant.
May 2016
Registered Community Design (example)

Design infringement ?
overall
impression
on the
'informed
informed
user' questioned
product
RCD 2649491-0002
The "Romántica"
Romántica (Frigo-
Unilever) vs "Fantástica"
(Menorquina) case

"FANTÁSTICA 1" (found
g g in second
infringing
instance Spanish Court)
"FANTÁSTICA 2"
((found not-infringing)
g g)
Coca-Cola formula is
not patented. The
composition
iti off th
the
complex flavoring
mixture is kept
p secret
A Coca-Cola
Coca Cola employee attempted to sell to Pepsi a secret formula.
FBI arrested three persons due to a police report from the person who received
the offer. EL PAÍS 7 julio 2006

Other chemical products (ceramics,
glasses, etc.) suffer from
irreversible transformations that
makek reverse engineering
i i off
preparation process impossible
and/ or uneconomical

When they are properly kept confidential,
confidential
undisclosed know-how
(one of the two types of trade secrets, the other being
undisclosed business information))
can be very valuable as a competitive asset and as an asset for
technology transfer (via a know-how license)
__________________________________________________
'Golden
Golden Rule':
Rule : When our own technology can be exploited as
a secret, both from a technical and a regulatory point of
view our first working hypothesis should be not to patent it,
view, it
and to exploit it in secret, creating evidence of exploitation
(cf. prior users
users' rights)
Trade secret (TS) = undisclosed know-how and
undisclosed business information (cf.
(cf EU Directive)
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and
business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition,
use and disclosure
(Text with EEA relevance) OJEU 2016-06-15 L 157/1
Whereas:
(1) Businesses and non-commercial
non commercial research institutions invest in acquiring
acquiring, developing and
applying know-how and information which is the currency of the knowledge economy and
provides a competitive advantage... Such valuable know-how and business information,
that is undisclosed and intended to remain confidential,
confidential is referred to as a trade secret.
secret
(38) This Directive should not affect the application of competition law rules, in particular
Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). The
measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive should not be used to restrict
unduly competition in a manner contrary to the TFEU.
(39) This Directive should not affect the application of any other relevant law in other
areas, including IPR and the law of contract. However, where the scope of application of
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the enforcement of IPR,, and the scope
p of this Directive overlap,
p, this Directive takes
precedence as lex specialis.
Know-how is a well-established term in several EU languages ...
know-how = secret technical information / geheime technische Wissen
(cf. Pagenberg/Beir, "Lizenzverträge / License Agreements", 6th ed. 2008, Carl Heymanns V.)
DE: Richtlinie (EU) 2016/943 über den Schutz vertraulichen Know-hows

Know hows und
vertraulicher Geschäftsinformationen (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) vor rechtswidrigem
Erwerb sowie rechtswidriger Nutzung und Offenlegung
NL: Richtlijn (EU) 2016/943 betreffende de bescherming van niet-openbaar
gemaakte knowhow en bedrijfsinformatie (bedrijfsgeheimen) tegen het onrechtmatig
verkrijgen gebruiken en openbaar maken daarvan
verkrijgen,
IT: Direttiva (UE) 2016/943 sulla protezione del know-how riservato e delle
informazioni commerciali riservate ((segreti
g commerciali)) contro l'acquisizione,
q
l'utilizzo e la divulgazione illeciti
PT: Diretiva (UE) 2016/943 relativa à proteção de know-how e de informações
comerciais
i i confidenciais
fid i i ((segredos
d comerciais)
i i ) contra
t a sua aquisição,
i i ã utilização
tili ã e
divulgação ilegais
FR: Directive (UE) 2016/943 sur la protection des savoir-faire et des informations
commerciales non divulgués (secrets d'affaires) contre l'obtention, l'utilisation et la
divulgation illicites.
illicites [ But in practice know how is often used in French ]
know-how

Know-how is a well-established term in Spanish...
1974
1989
2015
...however, in some Spanish legal texts "conocimientos técnicos" is used instead:
Art. 76.1 LP1986. Salvo pacto en contrario, quien transmita una solicitud de patente o una
patente o conceda una licencia sobre las mismas
mismas, está obligado a poner a disposición del
adquiriente o del licenciatario los conocimientos técnicos que posea y que resulten
necesarios para poder proceder a una adecuada explotación de la invención.
A t 84
Art. 84.1
1 LP2015
LP2015. Conocimientos
C i i t técnicos.
té i [ and
d th
the same article
ti l ttextt ]
Directiva (UE) 2016/943 relativa a la protección de los conocimientos técnicos y la

información empresarial no divulgados (secretos comerciales) contra su obtención obtención,
utilización y revelación ilícitas. Considerando (1): ... conocimientos técnicos (know how)..
Directive (EU) 2016/943 of undisclosed know
know-how
how and business information (trade
secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure
Ley 1/2019 de Secretos Empresariales
Transpone la Directiva (UE) 2016/943 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo
Modifica el Art. 13 de la Ley 3/1991 de Competencia Desleal (violación de secretos

182 empresariales), sin perjuicio de los tipos delictivos de los Arts. 278 y 279 del Código Penal
Terminología en la LSE española
L 1/2019,
Ley 1/2019 d
de 20 d
de ffebrero,
b d
de S
Secretos
t E Empresariales
i l
PREÁMBULO I
... aprobación
b ió d de lla Directiva
Di ti (UE) 2016/943
2016/943... relativa
l ti a lla protección
t ió d
de llos
conocimientos técnicos y la información empresarial no divulgados (secretos
comerciales) contra su obtención, utilización y revelación ilícitas ...
El objetivo de la iniciativa europea es, por un lado, garantizar que la competitividad
de las empresas y organismos de investigación europeos que se basa en el saber
h
hacer [ usado
[no d en ell articulado]
ti l d ] y en información
i f ió empresarial i l no divulgada
di l d
(secretos empresariales) esté protegida de manera adecuada ...
Se ha considerado igualmente conveniente en todo caso preservar la terminología
tradicionalmente empleada en nuestro sistema jurídico en los casos en los que los
nuevos términos se refieren a conceptos sobradamente arraigados, estudiados y
tratados en la legislación,
legislación la jurisprudencia y la doctrina
doctrina. En este sentido
sentido, por
ejemplo, se ha preferido mantener las expresiones de "secretos empresariales"
[ en lugar de "secretos comerciales" = "trade secrets" ] para designar el objeto
d protección
de ió y dde "titular"
"tit l " [ en llugar de
d "poseedor"
" d " = "holder"
"h ld " ] para designar
d i a
quien legítimamente posee el secreto empresarial y se beneficia de su protección
jurídica.

What is 'trade secret' ?
Directive 2016/943
2016/943. Article 2
2. Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions apply:
(1) ‘trade secret’ means information which meets all of the following requirements:
(a) it is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration
and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible
to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in
question; [no secret => prior art, not novel; but prior art => no secret? ]
(b) it has commercial value because it is secret;
(c) it has been subject to reasonable steps [the Directive and the Spanish
LSE are silent on these 'medidas razonables'] under the circumstances
circumstances, by
the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret;
(2) ‘trade
trade secret holder’
holder means any natural or legal person lawfully controlling a
trade secret;
(3) ‘infringer’ means any natural or legal person who has unlawfully acquired,
used or disclosed a trade secret;
(4) ‘infringing goods’ means goods, the design, characteristics, functioning,
production process or marketing of which significantly benefits from trade secrets
unlawfully acquired, used or disclosed. Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
184
Know-how definition in RECATT 316/2014 - Regulation (EU)
on the application of Art. 101(3) of the TFEU to categories of TT agreements
Article 1. Definitions
1 For the purposes of this Regulation,
1. Regulation the following definitions shall apply:
(b) 'technology rights' means know-how and the following rights, or a
combination thereof
thereof, including applications for or applications for registration
of those rights: (i) patents, (ii) utility models, etc.
(g) 'contract
contract product'
product means a product produced,
produced directly or indirectly,
indirectly on
the basis of the licensed technology rights; ...
(i) 'know-how'
know how means a package of practical information, resulting from
experience and testing, which is:
(i) secret, that is to say, not generally known or easily accessible,
(ii) substantial,
b t ti l that
th t is
i to
t say, significant
i ifi t and
d useful
f l ffor th
the production
d ti off
the contract products [close to 'with commercial value'?] , and
(iii) identified, that is to say, described in a sufficiently comprehensive
manner so as to make it possible to verify that it fulfils the criteria of secrecy
and substantiality;
...
Summing-up: EU legal requirements of know-how
T be
To b protected
t t d & transferable,
t f bl know-how
k h is
i information
i f ti that:
th t
- is p
practical/technical information ((no 'business information'))
- is undisclosed/secret (cf. Trade Secret EU Directive and EU RECATT)
- has been subject to reasanoble steps to keep it secret
(cf. Trade Secret EU Directive)
- is substantial, i.e. significant and useful for the production of

[ products (cf.
(cf EU RECATT)
- has commercial value because is secret (cf.Trade Secret EU Dir.)

- is identified, i.e. sufficiently described for verifying secrecy
[ and substantiality (cf. EU RECATT)
Identification is essential to prevent vanishing of know-how, in case
the person having access to it departs (e.g.
(e g is a 'departing
departing
employee'), loses memory or dies! Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
186
Brainstorming about how to protect our technology
Think about what we have and what we want to do with it:
1. Analysis of technical subject-matter: Is it patentable? Can it be
exploited
l it d as undisclosed
di l d know
k how?
h ? Are
A bothb th protections
t ti alternatives?
lt ti ?
Patentable subject matter can only be claimed as: products, product preparations,
uses or other industrial activities/processes/methods
uses, activities/processes/methods. However,
However trade secretscan
protect any kind of technical/business information.
Always taking into

account regulatory
requirements (information
compulsory to be publicly
disclosed)
2. Think about exploitation possibilities and business plans

- players
- territories
- potential competitors
- technology transfer possibilities
Trade Secret (TS) identification
Key people in the company should determine what confidential information that give
the company an advantage over its competitors constitute TS. TS may be:
Undisclosed know-how,, such as:
- Computer programs (including programmer's notes)
- Specifications,
Specifications bill of materials,
materials recipes,
recipes and the like
- Processes (including flow charts)
- Formulas (including algorithms)
- Machinery (developed, utilized or unique to the company)
Undisclosed business information,
f such as:
- Business methodologies and marketing plans
- Vendor/supplier lists (nor readly available from public sources)
- Distribution sources and customer information
- Financial information and product/service pricing
- Personnel information

Industrial espionage risks
Unlawful
acquisition, use
or disclosure
di l off
trade secrets
(
(INDUSTRIAL
ESPIONAGE)
is an important
risk.
i k
But the main
problem
bl iis th
the llack
k
of experience and
awareness of
company
managers about
measures for f trade
t d
secret protection
[[example
p of
ceramics maker].
When a trade secret cannot be used by competitors?
Directive 2016/943
2016/943. Article 4
4. Unlawful acquisition,
acquisition use and
disclosure of trade secrets
1.Member States shall ensure that trade secret holders are entitled to apply for the
measures, procedures and remedies provided for in this Directive in order to
prevent, or obtain redress for, the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of
their trade secret.
2.The acquisition of a trade secret without the consent of the trade secret holder
shall be considered unlawful, whenever carried out by:
(a) unauthorised access to, appropriation of, or copying of any documents,

objects, materials, substances or electronic files, lawfully under the control of the
trade secret holder
holder, containing the trade secret or from which the trade secret can be
deduced;
(b) any other

th conduct
d t which,
hi h under
d th
the circumstances,
i t iis considered
id d contrary
t tto
honest commercial practices.
(cont.)

When a trade secret cannot be used by competitors? (cont.)
Directive 2016/943
2016/943. Article 4
4. Unlawful acquisition,
acquisition use and
disclosure of trade secrets (cont.)
3.The
3 Th use or disclosure
di l off a trade
t d secrett shall
h ll b
be considered
id d unlawful
l f l whenever
h carried
i d
out, without the consent of the trade secret holder, by a person who is found to meet any of
the following conditions:
(a) having acquired the trade secret unlawfully;
(b) being in breach of a confidentiality agreement or any other duty not to disclose the
trade secret;
(c) being in breach of a contractual or any other duty to limit the use of the trade secret.
4.The
4 The acquisition
acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret shall also be considered unlawful
whenever a person, at the time of the acquisition, use or disclosure, knew or ought, under
the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret had been obtained directly or
indirectly from another person who was using or disclosing the trade secret unlawfully within the
meaning of paragraph 3.
5.The production, offering or placing on the market of infringing goods, or the
importation export or storage of infringing goods for those purposes,
importation, purposes shall also be
considered an unlawful use of a trade secret where the person carrying out such activities
knew, or ought, under the circumstances, to have known that the trade secret was used
unlawfully within the meaning of paragraph 3
3.

Reverse engineering risks
Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the process by
which a man-made object is deconstructed to reveal its designs,
architecture or to extract knowledge from the object
architecture, object.
Reverse engineering is applicable in the fields of mechanical engineering,
electronic engineering
engineering, software engineering
engineering, chemical engineering
engineering,
systems biology, etc.

When a trade secret can be used by competitors?
Directive 2016/943
2016/943. Article 3 Lawful acquisition,
acquisition use and
disclosure of trade secrets
1.The
1 Th acquisition
i iti off a ttrade
d secrett shall
h ll be
b considered
id d lawful
l f l when
h the
th trade
t d secrett
is obtained by any of the following means:
(a) independent discovery or creation;
(b) observation, study, disassembly or testing of a product or object that has
been made available to the p public [[reverse engineering]
g g] or that is lawfullyy in the
possession of the acquirer of the information who is free from any legally valid duty to
limit the acquisition of the trade secret;
((c)) exercise
i off the
th right
i ht off workers
k or workers'
k ' representatives
t ti to
t information
i f ti and
d
consultation in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices;
(d) any other practice which,
which under the circumstances
circumstances, is in conformity with honest
commercial practices.
2.The
2 The acquisition,
acq isition use
se or disclos
disclosure
re of a trade secret shall be considered la
lawful
f l to the
extent that such acquisition, use or disclosure is required or allowed by Union or
national law.

TS vs. employee's use of experience and skills
Directive EU 2016/943 - Subject matter and scope [incorporado en la LSE]
Art. 3. Nothing in this Directive shall be understood to offer any ground for restricting
the mobility y of employees.
p y In p
particular,, in relation to the exercise of such mobility,
y,
this Directive shall not offer any ground for:
(a) limiting employees' use of information that does not constitute a trade secret
as defined in point (1) of Article 2;
(b) limiting employees' use of experience and skills [experiencia y
competencias] honestly acquired in the normal course of their employment;
(c) imposing any additional restrictions on employees in their employment
contracts other than restrictions imposed
p in accordance with Union or national law.
Exit interview with departing personnel
- Review NDA, reminding departing employee
not to use or divulge company's TS
- Require signature of termination certificate,
acknowledging company's TS
- Obtain all TS material in employee's possesion
[e perience and skills belong to him/her]

[experience
Non-disclosure/confidentiality/secrecy agreements
A non-disclosure agreement (NDA),
(NDA) also known as confidential
disclosure agreement (CDA), proprietary information agreement,
confidentiality agreement or secrecy agreement, is a legal contract
between at least two parties that outlines confidential material,
knowledge, or information that the parties wish to share with one
another for certain purposes
purposes, but wish to restrict access to or by third
parties.
NDAs include the definition of what is confidential,
confidential i.e.
i e the information to
be held confidential. Modern NDAs will typically include a laundry list of
types of items which are covered, including unpublished patent
applications, know-how, schema, financial information, verbal
representations, customer lists, vendor lists, business practices/strategies,...
It iis possible
ibl for
f an employee
l to
t sign
i an NDA or NDA-like
NDA lik agreementt
with an employer. In fact, some employment agreements will include a
clause restricting employees'
employees use and dissemination of company-owned
company owned
confidential information. In legal disputes resolved by settlement, the parties
often sign a confidentiality agreement relating to the terms of the settlement.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreement; accessed 2019-04-01)
What should not be included in a patent application
- What is worth being kept as know how (optimization,
(optimization scaling,
scaling logistics
logistics...))
- Third parties know-how that we cannot disclose (or it is not interesting for
us to do it).
it)
- 'Science' that is unnecessary for patentability (discussions, justifications,
reasonings how the invention was made
reasonings, made, unnecessary comparisons
comparisons, etcetc.).
)
- Unnecessary prior art: only the 'closest prior art' should be mentioned and,
if possible
possible, without referring to specific documents
documents.
- What we want to allow to be subject matter of future selection inventions.
- Well-established definitions of known terms in the field (assuming we do
not want the terms to be interpreted differently).
GOLDEN RULE: Only information that is necessary and sufficient for
getting a strong patent right (i.e. valid and enforceable) should be
included in a patent application...
application but nothing more! The applicant is not
interested in 'educating' competitors, neither in paying more
translation/publication fees than needed. For a given protection, the shorter
the application the better!
Pascual Segura, "OEPM-UB Online Course on Patents: Drafting Module"
Aunque se patenten los aspectos esenciales de la tecnología,
se suele teneer información técnica no descrita en la p
patente,
que es valiosa como know-how para explotación propia o TT
Entre este know-how está p
p.ej.:
j
- información sobre fuentes o acuerdos de aprovisionamiento preferidos
- procesos industriales para el manejo de ciertas sustancias peligrosas
- detalles sobre optimización de procesos industriales
- información sobre control y aseguramiento de calidad
- bases de datos o programas usadas p p.ej.
ej para diversos protocolos
A veces el propietario menudo no aprecia este tipo de información que se

relaciona con la tecnología, debido quizás a que, al ser conocimientos que
se tienen en casa, los da por supuestos y no los valora adecuadamente.
En el caso de una licencia de patente, toda este know-
how, convenientemente "empaquetado" en el contrato
de TT
TT, no solamente aumenta el peso del "paquete"
paquete a know
licenciar, sino que puede contribuir al éxito de la how
transferencia, para beneficio de ambas partes.

PATENTS vs. KNOW-HOW:
two alternative - and sometimes, supplementary - IP rights
PATENT KNOW-HOW
Legal protection that acts De facto protection that allows

as imitation deterrent 'reverse-engineering'
reverse-engineering imitation
Info. with p
public access Info. with restricted access
Protects inventions (claims) Protects any valuable information
Lasts for 20 years Lasts as long as kept confidential
Is territorial, thus expensive Is not territorial, thus less expensive

when in several countries (protects in all countries)
Licensing
g on a solid basis Licensing
g suffers from Arrow's
disclosure paradox
In microbiology there are
many trade secrets (e.g.
confined
fi d strains
t i used d in
i
fermentation processes)

WORLD’S BIGGEST FRAGRANCE COMPANY LOSES $80
MILLION TRADE SECRET CASE
Managing IP - 13 February 2014 - Michael Loney, New York
Mane USA has been cleared by a New Jersey federal court of

allegations it conspired with perfumer James Krivda to misappropriate
more than
th 600 ttraded secrett fformulas
l ffrom Givaudan
Gi d Fragrances,
F th
the
world’s largest flavour and fragrance company
Krivda
K i d lleft
ft Givaudan
Gi d tot join
j i MMane iin MMay 2008
2008, after
ft
creating perfumes such as Britney Spears Fantasy, Celine
Dion Enchanting, Jennifer Lopez Deseo [see picture],
and Ralph Lauren Ralph WildWild. Givaudan alleged that
Krivda printed and stole hundreds of formulas with
the intent to use them at Mane. In court filings, Givaudan
said "Krivda
Krivda and Mane have attempted one of the greatest
heists of trade secrets this jurisdiction may have ever
seen" and that the case “involves one of the most
egregious thefts of trade secrets by a departing
employee ever witnessed in New Jersey”. The firm
claimed the formulas were the “lifeblood” of its
business and were worth more than $80 million.

Examples of people who are tacitly bound by secrecy
- attorneys
tt att law
l (by
(b 'client-attorney
' li t tt privilege'
i il ' iin some situations)
it ti )
- patent attorneys and agents
- editors and referees in the process of scientific publication
- civil
i il servants,
t e.g. those
th involved
i l d in
i public
bli funds
f d granting
ti
(unless otherwise established)
NOT
- top level managers NEEDED
- medical doctors
- confessors
- bank employees, etc.
In the patent system secrecy is defined by patent laws and
regulations. Patent applications, search reports and written opinions
are kept secret until month 18th from earliest priority date.
Aft
Afterwards,
d th
the ffull
ll d
dossier
i iis open tto th
the public.
bli
P t t and
Patents d know-how
k h can be
b two
t supplementary
l t
202
ways of protecting a technology
Patent sale and/or patent license are best tools for
technology transfer (based on a public document)
by direct sale/license ...
or by cross-licensing

When in a given organization technical solutions to technical
problems (i.e. inventions) are found, to protect them as
patents / utility models

may provide a competitive advantage by exclusive exploitation of
the invention and/or by transfer (licence, sale) of exploitation rights
However, decision makers should be properly advised and careful because:

- patenting is always an expensive investment, particularly when trying to get
granted patents in several countries, and
- patenting may be a bad investment in circumstances such as: lack of validity
(typically due to uncertainty on prior art), lack of enforceability (typically with
method claims),
claims) and/or lack of commercial value al e of the patented technology.
technolog
In any case, there are mechanisms to postpone expenditure to some extent,
such as the priority right and the PCT procedure (to keep open 12 and 30
months respectively, the possibility of patenting in virtually all important
countries), and the EPO procedure (for getting patents with a single procedure,
than can be later validated in the European countries of interest)
How can patents help your business
IP, in general
IP general, should be an integral part of your business plan and should not
be neglected. Patents, in particular, can provide substantial benefits to an
innovating business, as they can:
- protect your R&D investment (by preventing from imitating your technology)
- secure exclusivity and market position (merely having a patent can act as a
deterrent, even without having to initiate a legal infringement action)
- be sold or licensed (y
(you can g
get upfront
p fees and royalties,
y even from markets
different from those where your bussines operates)
- increase company value (especially for start-ups at merging or acquisition)
- form a basis for joint ventures and collaborations (using each other's
technologies, clearly defining what is being shared)
- create a positive company image (demonstrating a high level of innovation,
expertise and technological capability, what can be useful for marketing purposes)
- reduce your tax bill (e.g. through Patent Box)
- defend against attacks from rivals (when you can counter-attack and negotiate
a settlement; not merely by the fact of having patents)
206 ... Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Two frequent misunderstandings about patents
- One has to patent its own technology in order to exploit it

(N
(Nonsense!!P
Patenting
t ti could ld b
be iinapropriate
i t and/or
d/ a waste
t off
money)
- Patenting gives the owner a 'defense' against potential

infringement of previous patents of another (Nonsense! And
a feeling that can be very dangerous)

Art. 64 LP2015. Falta de cobertura frente a
patentes anteriores
El titular de una patente no podrá invocarla para defenderse frente a
las acciones dirigidas contra él por infracción de otras patentes que
tengan una fecha de prioridad anterior a la de la suya.
Tu patente no es un
Tu patente es un arma [derecho] que te
escudo que te protege
permite atacar [i.e. demandar por la vía
de la infracción de las
civil] a los que creas que la infringen
patentes de otros
Main World patent institutions (number of states)
- United Nations (UN, 193; of which 48 in the least-developed list)

- World Intelectual Property Organization, WIPO, (188)
- Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (174)
- Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT (152)
- World Trade Organization: Trade-Related IP rightS, TRIPS (160)
- European
p Patent Convention,, EPC:
members 38 (all EU included)
extension 2
validation 4

The World Intellectual Property
p y Organization
g (WIPO,
( , Geneva,, 188
members) administrates -among others- the 1883 Paris Convention (industrial
property, 174 members), the 1886 Berna Convention (copyright & related, 165
members) and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT
members), (PCT, 152 members)
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
(1883 seven versions
(1883, versions, being in force the one of Stockholm 1967)
- Establishment of the Paris Union (174 countries, in 2015, each one with
an ind.
ind prop
prop. office and a bulletin)
bulletin).
- Definition of the scope of ind. prop. rights: patents/utility models,
industrial designs (design patents in US)
US), trademarks,
trademarks geographical
indications, repression of unfair competition...
- National (no reciprocal) treatment for all physical/legal persons
persons,
independently from nationality/residence
- Priority right (patents: 12 months; trademarks & designs: 6 meses),
meses)
independent from what happens to the priority application.
- Divisional applications
- Independency between two patents from two different countries, even
when they relate to 'the
the same invention
invention'
- Moral right of inventors to be mentioned in all documents
- Patentability is independent from authorization to exploit
In Geneva
Created on
1.01.1995,
(after Uruguay
R
Round d off
GATT )
160 member
states
t t (since
( i
26 June 2014)
More than 600

employees
l

( ADPIC in Spanish )
TRIPS 1995 (index)

Legislación histórica sobre patentes en España (1/3)
1811 RD (J
(Joseff N
Napoleon)
l ) estableciendo
t bl i d llas reglas
l por las
l que h
han d de regirse
i en
España los que inventen, perfeccionen o introduzcan nuevos artilugios en
cualquier ramo de la industria
Art. I. El gobierno protege especialmente y declara sagrada la propiedad de todo
descubrimiento o mejora en cualquier ramo de industria, manufacturera o rural, asegurando al
autor su entero y pleno goce por el tiempo y del modo que se prescribirá.
Art. V. El que quisiere... asegurarse por cierto tiempo el goce exclusivo de algún descubrimiento,
comunicándolo después al público (no manteniéndolo reservado)..., estará obligado a sacar un
título o patente (de invención
invención, de perfección
perfección, o de importación) que acredite su propiedad
propiedad.
1812 Constitución de Cádiz.

Art. 172. Las restricciones de la autoridad del Rey son:... Novena: No puede el Rey conceder
privilegio exclusivo a persona ni corporación alguna.
Art. 335.
Art 335 Tocará a las Diputaciones Provinciales:...
Provinciales: Quinto: ..., fomentar la agricultura
agricultura, la industria
y el comercio, protegiendo a los inventores de nuevos descubrimientos en cualquiera de estos
ramos.
1820 Decreto de las Cortes (Fernando VII) estableciendo las reglas por las que han
de regirse todos los que inventen, introduzcan o perfeccionen en la industria
española
ñ l (expedición
( di ió d
de "certificados
" ifi d de d inventor")
i ") cont.
1826 RD (Fernando VII) estableciendo las reglas y el orden con que se han de
conceder "privilegios exclusivos" por la invención, introducción y mejora...
1878 Ley fijando las reglas y condiciones bajo las que todo español o extranjero
que pretenda establecer o haya establecido en los dominios españoles una nueva
industria, tiene derecho a su explotación exclusiva por cierto número de años.
Art. 2. El derecho ... se adquiere obteniendo del Gobierno una patente de invención (20 años)
o de introducción (5 años). Art. 15. Presentando una solicitud al Ministerio de Fomento,
acompañada de una Memoria acabada con una Nota.
1883 Convenio de París constituyendo una unión internacional para la

protección de la propiedad industrial
1902 Ley sobre Propiedad Industrial

Patentes de invención ((20 años), ), certificados de adición (hasta
( final de patente
p principal)
p p )y
patentes de introducción (5 años), presentando memoria y nota ante el Ministerio de
Agricultura, Industria, Comercio y Obras Públicas, donde hay un Registro de la propiedad
industrial. Todo se publica en el "Boletín de la Propiedad Intelectual e Industrial", creado en 1886.
1924 RD (M. Primo de Rivera) Reglamento para la aplicación de la Ley de

p
Propiedad Industrial y Comercial de 1902.

1929 Estatuto de la Propiedad Industrial
1929 RDL reformando la Ley de Propiedad Industrial de 1902 y su Reglamento de 1924
1930 RDL modificando el RDL de 1929. Texto refundido.
1931 RD modificando lo anterior, y creando el nombre "Estatuto de la Propiedad Industrial".
1931-09-16 Ley elevándolo al rango de "ley de la República"
Patentes de invención (20 años), certificados de adición, patentes de introducción (10 años) y
modelos
d l dde utilidad
tilid d (20 años)
ñ )
1986 Ley 11/1986, de 20 de marzo, de Patentes.

Patentes
P t t (20 añosñ d desde
d ffecha
h solicitud),
li it d) adiciones
di i a llas patentes,
t t y modelos
d l d de utilidad
tilid d (10 años
ñ
desde fecha solicitud). Desaparecen las patentes de introducción.
1986 Adhes
Adhes. al Convenio sobre concesión de Patentes Europeas (Munich
(M i h 1973)
1989 Adhes. al Tratado de Cooperación en materia de Patentes (PCT, Washin. 1970)
1994 Acuerdo que establece la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Anexo 1C:
Aspectos de los derechos de propiedad intelectual relacionados con el comercio, ADPIC
2000 Acta de revisión del Convenio sobre la Patente Europea
2015 Ley 24/2015, de 24 de julio, de Patentes

(desaparecen
218
las adiciones a las patentes) Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
A pate
patentt syste
system as a 'three
t ee legged
egged tab
table'
e
All 'three legs' have to be solid simultaneously

f th
for the 'table'
't bl ' to
t stand
t d
patent system
P t t Office
Patent Offi
legislation
g dispute
p resolution
Los tres pilares del sistema español de patentes
- Desde 1986 la legislación es homologable con la de los países más avanzados
de la UE (DE, GB...): adhesión en 1986 al Convenio de la Patente Europea
(European Patent Convention, EPC1973), modificado por EPC2000; promulgación
de LP1986,
LP1986 modificada por LP2015; adhesión en 1989 al Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT); y ADPIC (TRIPS) de 1995.
- La EPO y la OEPM funcionan bastante bien.
bien
- La Admin. de Justicia en materia de patentes ha ido mejorando desde principio
g XXI: SAP Bcn-15 "mangueras"
del siglo g de 2003;; JMs creados en 2004;; AP Mad-28
creada en 2006; exclusividad de los JMs de Madrid, Barcelona y Valencia en 2017.
Sistema español de patentes
EPO y OEPM
Legislación: EPC, LP1986, Administración de Justicia
LP2015, PCT, ADPIC
OEPM TS
Parlamento
LEGISLATIVO EJECUTIVO JUDICIAL

Constitución Gobierno Tribunal Supremo (casación)
Convenios/tratados int. TS-3 Cont. Admin. TS-1 Civil
Ministerio de Energía
Energía,
(CPE1973/2000, ADPIC)
Turismo y Agenda
Leyes Orgánicas Digital Trib. Super. Audiencias
Leyes (LP1986/2015) Justicia Mad Provinciales
Oficina Española de (Sec. C-A) (Secs. Mercantil)
Acquis
q communautaire Patentes y Marcas
(OEPM)
Reglamentos (CCP, etc.) Juzgados de lo
ex-parte
Directivas (Biotecnología, etc.) Mercantil de la
inter partes
inter-partes ciudad
i d d sede
d TSJ
221 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
Los tres poderes en el sistema español de patentes
Escuela
Judicial
Debido a su participación en el curso arriba indicado, y en las clases

sobre
b patentes de d los
l sucesivos
i programas formativos
f i de
d
especialización mercantil de la Escuela Judicial, desde 2007 el autor
no realiza ninguna actividad privada ajena a su trabajo como
funcionario, profesor y agente de patentes en la UB

Overview of Spanish patent litigation system
Bifurcated No
Administrative post-grant review Yes
Jury trial No
Preliminary injunction Yes
Specialized court/judges first instance Yes
Trial courts of first instance [ (*) = only patent cases] JM 1, 4 & 5 Barcelona (*)
JM 2 Valencia (*)
()
JM 6-11 Madrid
JM 1 A Coruña (started end of 2018)
JM 2 Bilbao ( idem )
JM 1 Granada ( idem )
JM 1 Las Palmas ( idem )
Average duration in first instance (months) 18-24
Approx. number of annual patent litigation filings 2015: 30 Barcelona, 15 Madrid
2016: 44 Barcelona, 9 Madrid
2017: 34 Bcn, 15 Mad, 10 Valencia
A
Average costs
t in
i first
fi t instance
i t ('000' USD) 80 180
80-180
Subject to the court, loser pays a
portion of winner costs
Trial courts of second instance The 7 resp
resp. Provincial Appeal Courts
(Commercial Law Sections)
Average duration in second instance (months) 12-18
Approx patentee win rate
Approx. 57% (34 out of 60
60, in 2013
2013-2016)
2016)

The reason behind the patent system
The patent system intends to promote technological development:
- disseminating new technology free-of-charge,
free-of-charge and
- encouraging R+D+I by means of:
- recovering the investment done (in the whole R+D+I
R+D+I, not only in
those inventios which are exploited), and
- making a reasonable profit from the exploitation of the (very few)
inventions which reach the markets of the (usually few) countries
where inventions are patented
The patent system is not perfect, but it is the least worst

known option for encouraging research
research, development and
innovation, in a market economy and in a sector of free
competition In general
competition. general, proposed alternatives (prizes
(prizes,
subsidies...) turn out to be worst than the patent system.

"An Economic Review of the Patent System." F. Machlup 1958
If we did nott have
h a patent
t t system,t it wouldld be
b irresponsible,
i ibl on the
th
basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to
recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system
for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present
knowledge, to recommend abolishing it. This last statement refers to a
country
t such h as th
the USA - nott to
t a smallll country
t and d nott a predominantly
d i tl
nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well
suggest another conclusion...
While economic analysis does not provide a basis for choosing between
" ll or nothing,"
"all thi " it d
does provide id a sufficiently
ffi i tl fifirm b
basis
i ffor d
decisions
i i about
b t
"a little more or a little less" or various ingredients of the patent system. (*)
(*) Fritz Machlup, "An economic review of the patent system"; Concluding remarks, pp. 79-80; US Gov. Printing
Office, 1958 (for use of the Committee on the Judiciary, US Congress).
Fritz Machlup (1902-1983) was an Austrian-American economist who was

president of the International Economic Association from 1971-1974. He was
one of the first economists to examine knowledge as an economic resource,
and is credited with popularizing the concept of the information society.
The patent system as R&D incentive
"The
The patent system adds the fuel of interest to the fire of
genius in the discovery and production of new and useful
things" [Abraham Lincoln, who in 1849, at the age of 40, applied for U.S.
Patent No. 6469, which raised steamboats off sandbars. He is the only U.S.
President to obtain a patent, a credit to his determination and ingenuity].
In 1624, in times of King James I of England, the Parliament

enacted the Statue of Monopolies, prohibiting the grant of
monopolies with the exemption of letters patents granted to
monopolies...
the true and first inventor.

Two scenarios for a claim in the industrial world
A patent claim is a definition of a set of technical subject-matter that:
in a PATENT APPLICATION being prosecuted in a patent office
- mayy be considered p
patentable or non-patentable
p
in a PATENT (i.e. a granted PATENT) that is in force
- prima facie it is considered valid, but without validity warranty
- in a nullity action before a patent office (opposition) or before a court, it

may be declared valid or invalid/null, but not partially invalid
(ne ertheless in some jurisdictions
(nevertheless j risdictions it ma
may be amended/limited giving
gi ing rise to a
different claim)
- in an infringement action before a court, it may be declared infringed

or not-infringed by a given industrial/commercial activity of a third party

What is a granted patent / utility model?
- A single title (not divisible,
divisible whose property may be shared) associated to a
public document, with one or more claims, each claim confering its own
rights
- with a limited duration (20/10
( / years, from
f the application date))
granted by the Patent Office, having effect within the territory of a Country, but
without validity y warranty y of the claims
- to whom are entitled to the protection right (inventors, or their
employers/contractors if it is a labor invention), who are the owners of the
application (applicants) or the patent (patentees) and pay all fees and expenses
- conferring to the proprietor some rights to file legal (civil) actions in order to
impede exploitation of the valid claims by third parties who do not have
proprietor's consent
- in consideration of the invention being disclosed (and published after 18 months
from the earliest priority date) in a sufficient and enabling way to be worked by a
person skilled in the art [enabling disclosure requirement]
- every claim, to be valid, should fulfill all other patentability requirements:
eligibility/not
li ibilit / t being
b i excluded,
l d d technical
t h i l character,
h t novelty, lt inventive
i ti step,
t
industrial applicability, and no added-matter. There are patentability peculiarities
for utilityy models which are non homogeneous g even within EU.

Peculiarities of Utility Models
Non homogeneous patent protection for 'smaller' inventions
Requirements:
Protects an invention ((solution to a technical problem)
p )
Novelty (but in some countries not absolute)
Inventive step p ((but in some countries not necessary y
at all; in others -e.g. Spain- less than in a patent)
Subject-matter eligibility:
- Not inventions of process/method
- Mostly used for inventions concerning articles of
manufacture (with shape)
- In Germany also for chem, pharma & bio products
- In Spanish 2015 Act also for chem products, not
pharma
h
Some countries and regions with utility models
Source:http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/utility_models/where.htm
Argentina Czech Republic Italy Republic of Korea

Armenia Denmark Japan Republic of Moldova
A
Australia
li Estonia K
Kazakhstan
kh R
Russian
i Federation
F d i
Austria Ethiopia Kenya Slovakia
ARIPO Finland Kyrgyzstan Spain
Belarus F
France Malaysia Taiwan
Belgium Georgia Mexico Tajikistan
Brazil Germany OAPI Trinidad & Tobago
Bulgaria Greece Peru Turkey
China Guatemala Philippines Ukraine
Colombia u ga y
Hungary Poland Uruguay
Costa Rica Ireland Portugal Uzbekistan
Important countries and regions without utility models

European Patent Office, United States, Great Britain, Netherlands

Subject-matter excluded from patentability by utility model in
EU countries (p
(process are excluded in all countries))

Thanks to: Nestor Corominas (EPA), 2016 AIPPI Spanish Meeting
UE countries with utility models and duration thereof
((no utility
y models in GB, NL, SE, CY, LV, LT))

Thanks to: Nestor Corominas (EPA), 2016 AIPPI Spanish Meeting
Lunes de Patentes 2016.09.26, Centre de Patents de la UB

There are no conflicts between patenting & publishing
Scientific publications and patent documents belong to two

different worlds
worlds, but they co-exist in harmony
SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION PATENT DOCUMENT
- voluntarily published - published by a legal obligation
- scientific or technical information - technical info., associated to a right
- with lexicographic control - without lexicographic control
- under a p
publication ethics - under the ((amoral)) p
patent system
y
- with editors and referees - with patent examiners
- true or false? - valid or invalid?
- original or plagiarized? - infringed or not?
- looks for being accepted in - looks for exploitation or for
highly-ranked journals and being cited being transferred
- looks for prestige (indirectly money) - looks directly for money

Roles of patents in different fields of technology
- Electromechanical patents play the typical hystorical role

- Pharma patents, including active pharmaceutical ingredients (fine
chemicals), to exclude the competition (highest importance)
- Other-chemicals patents (e.g. foods & feeds): important, but less
- Biotechnology
Bi t h l patents
t t as a tool
t l off survival
i l
- Electronics and computer-related-inventions patents as
bargaining chips
- University
yppatents as a source of royalty
y y income (spurious
( p role as
misunderstood curricula in Spain)
- Individual
Individual-inventor
inventor patents as lottery tickets
- 'Patent-trolls' patents (patents of non practising entities, NPE) as
tools of extortion
PROGRAM


EPC Article 52(1): Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of
technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step [are non
obvious in US] and are susceptible of industrial application. application
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EPO Guidelines] G-I. Patentability. 1. Basic requirements

There are four basic requirements
q for patentability:
p y
(i) there must be an "invention", belonging to any field of technology (cf.
G-II); [requirement of "technical character" or "technicality"]
(ii) the invention must be "susceptible of industrial application" (see G-III);
(iii) the invention must be "new" (see G-IV to VI); and
(iv) the invention must involve an "inventive
inventive step"
step (see GG-VII).
VII)
Generallyy in ordinaryy life an "invention" is something

g useful and new
("inventive" being implicit in "new"). However, in the patent system an
"invention" is a mere technical teaching; its industrial applicability/use,
its novelty and its inventive step are assessed separately.
[EPO Guidelines] G-I. Patentability (cont.)
2. Further requirements
In addition to these four basic requirements, ...the following two requirements ... are
implicitly contained in the EPC:
(i) the invention must be such that it can be carried out by a person skilled in the
art (after proper instruction by the application); this follows from Art. 83... and
(ii) the
th invention
i ti mustt be b off "technical
"t h i l character"
h t " to
t the
th extent
t t that
th t it mustt
relate to a technical field (Rule 42(1)(a)), must be concerned with a technical
problem (Rule 42(1)(c)), and must have technical features in terms of which
the matter for which protection is sought can be defined in the claim (Rule
43(1)) (see F-IV, 2.1). [ = explicit requirements of "technicality" in EPC Rules]
3. Technical progress, advantageous effects

The EPC does not require
q explicitly
p y or implicitly
p y that an invention, to be
patentable, must entail some technical progress or even any useful effect.
Nevertheless, advantageous effects, if any, with respect to the state of the art
should be stated in the description (Rule 42(1)(c)), and any such effects are often
important in determining "inventive step" (see G-VII, 5).
EPC Art. 52(2) [non-exhaustive list of things which are not
g
regarded as inventions]]
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within
the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing
games or doing business [business methods], and programs for
computers;
(d) presentations of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EPO Guidelines] G-II. Inventions
1. General remarks
The EPC does not define what is meant by "invention", but Art. 52(2)
contains a non-exhaustive list of things which are not regarded as
inventions. It will be noted that the items on this list are all either abstract
(e.g. discoveries or scientific theories) and/or non-technical (e.g.
aesthetic creations or presentations of information)...
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
CHAPTER I
INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION AND INTERNATIONAL SEARCH
Art 3 PCT
Art. PCT. The International Application
(1) Applications for the protection of inventions in any of the Contracting States may
b fil
be filed
d as iinternational
t ti l applications
li ti under
d thi
this T
Treaty.
t
(2) An international application shall contain, as specified in this Treaty and the
Regulations a request
Regulations, request, a description
description, one or more claims
claims, one or more drawings
(where required), and an abstract.
(3) The abstract merely serves the purpose of technical information and cannot
be taken into account for any other purpose, particularly not for the purpose of
interpreting the scope of the protection sought.
(4) The
Th international
i t ti l application
li ti shall:
h ll
(i) be in a prescribed language;
((ii)) comply
p y with the pprescribed physical
p y requirements;
q ;
(iii) comply with the prescribed requirement of unity of invention;
(iv) be subject to the payment of the prescribed fees.

Art. 5 PCT. The Description [cf. Art. 83 EPC.
"Disclosure of the invention"]
The description shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and
complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
Art 6 PCT.
Art. PCT The Claims [cf.
[cf Art.
Art 84 EPC]
The claim or claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. Claims
shall be clear and concise.
concise They shall be fully supported by the description.
description
Art. 7 PCT. The Drawings

g
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2)(ii), drawings shall be required when
they are necessary for the understanding of the invention.
(2) Where, without being necessary for the understanding of the invention, the
nature of the invention admits of illustration by drawings:
(i) the applicant may include such drawings in the international application when filed,
(ii) any designated Office may require that the applicant file such drawings with it
within the prescribed time limit.
limit
EPC Article 84: Claims
The claims shall define the [subject] matter for which protection
is sought [claims do not define 'the invention']. They shall be clear
and concise and be supported
s pported by
b the description.
description
EPC Article 69: Extent of protection [ What does it mean?]

(1) The extent [scope] of the protection conferred by a European patent or a
European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the
description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.
Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC

(1) General principles. Article 69 should not be interpreted as... On the contrary, it is
to be interpreted as defining
f a position between these extremes which combines a
fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal
certaintyy for third parties.
(2) Equivalents. For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by
a European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent
to an element specified in the claims.
In page 499 of a paper published in1990 (*), Giles S. Rich, then Chief Judge of the
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
Circuit coined the phrase:
"The
The name of the game is the claim"
claim
((*)) Giles S
S. Rich
Rich, "Extent
Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims - American Perspectives"
Perspectives ,
International Review of Industrial Property & Copyright Law (IIC), 1990, vol. 21, pp 497-519

Understanding the meaning of comprising in patent claims
Prior art : + many other

isolated
vegetables or
fruits
IInvention
ti embodiment:
b di t A mixture
i t h i (including,
having (i l di containing,
t i i which
hi h is
i
composed of, etc.) lettuce and tomato.
( This is a definition of a p
product )
Patent claim: An edible mixture comprising lettuce and tomato

[ + anything else; this is implicit ]
WHY?
( This is a definition of an excluding right )
Patent claim: An edible product comprising lettuce and tomato.
The industrial
Th i d t i l or commerciali l exploitation
l it ti off any off these
th products
d t would
ld be
b
an infringing act of the claim:
Even if any
y of these p
products were patentable
p (new,
( inventive, etc.),
) its patent
p
would be dependent from (i.e. potential infringement of) the first dominating claim
However the exploitation of

this product would not be
an infringing act of the
claim, because the product
does notot have
a eoone
eoof tthe
e
claim elements [the tomato]
Infringement of a standard (open-ended 'AND claim')
All elements rule: A standard

1. Preamble comprising A + B + [anything else]
claim is infringed by a
prohibited act off exploitation
(defined in Spain by Arts. 59-60
2. Preamble comprising A + B + C + [a.e.]
y de Patentes)) associated
of Ley
to a questioned embodiment,
when the questioned
3. Preamble comprising A + embodiment reproduces all
B + C + D + [a.e.]
the elements (also referred to
as limitations or technical
features) of the claim
[interpreted literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents].
D
Dependency
d li
line: 1 ← 2 ← 3
Comparison should be done
element-by-element.
In this example, a prohibited act associated to a questioned embodiment having
additional elements (e.g. a 'preamble' having A + B + C + D + E) infringes the three
cclaims.
a s But u none
o e iss infringed
ged when
e a co
common o e
element
e e is s missing
ss g (as happens
appe s e
e.g.
g
in "subcombination" A + C + D + E).
Typical drafting of
claims with a
dependency line/chain
Claiming
areas
Military analogy:
(protection
A fortress with 'fallback'
scopes)
positions,
ii prior
i art being
b i
'the enemy'
A non
military
analogy:
onion
layers are
claims

SJM Bcn-4 2014-04-11, Oatly vs. 5 empr. españolas;
leche de avena; product-by-process
product by process
Juzgado Mercantil Núm. 4 de Barcelona. SENTENCIA N.º 68/2014
E Barcelona,
En B l a once d
de abril
b il d
de d
dos milil catorce
t
Magistrado Juez D. Luis Rodríguez Vega
ANTECEDENTES DE HECHO
PRIMERO.- El procedimiento se inició mediante demanda presentada el día 3/4/2013 en la
que la demandante [OATLY] sostiene que las demandadas han infringido la patente de
la que es titular ES 2154684 (ES’684)
(ES 684), por lo que solicita que se declare tal infracción y
se condene a las demandadas, a cesar en los actos infractores y a indemnizar los
daños y perjuicios ocasionados.../...
FUNDAMENTOS DE DERECHO
Hechos no controvertidos. PRIMERO.- Son hechos relevantes para resolver el presente
litigio y no controvertidos por las partes los siguientes:
.../...
f) La primera bebida de avena de OATLY con estas características se comercializó en
g
Inglaterra en el año 1995,, mientras que
q OATLY como marca p propia
p se registró
g y lanzó al
mercado en el año 2001, encontrándose en la actualidad en 24 países.../...
g) En España la comercialización de este producto se inició a través de la empresa
distribuidora BIOCOP PRODUCTOS BIOLÓGICOS, S.A (BIOCOP) que es la que se ha
encargado hasta la fecha de su distribución de estos productos en nuestro país.../...
j) Las sociedades demandadas LIQUATS, SANTIVERI, NUTRITION SANTE IBERIA
y PAGESA están comercializando en el mercado español unas bebidas de
avena, fabricadas todas ellas por la mercantil también demandada LIQUATS
.../...
o) La patente europea EP 0731646
0731646, publicada en España con el número ES
2.154.684 (ES’684), proviene de una solicitud PCT o internacional (solicitud
WO1994SE00857, publicada con el número WO1995007628...) presentada por la
mercantil Cereal
C Base C Ceba AB (empresa
( que fforma parte del mismo grupo
empresarial que la actora) en fecha 14 de septiembre de 1994 y reivindica la
prioridad de una patente sueca (patente SE 9302996) presentada el 15 de
septiembre de 1993, cedida el 28 de enero del 2010 a la actora, que es la actual titular
.../...
r) La ESES’684
684 lleva por título “Suspensión
Suspensión de cereales homogénea y estable”,
estable , y tiene
por objeto una suspensión de cereal homogénea y estable que sabe y tiene el aroma
de la avena natural, así como un método para preparación de la misma.
La reivindicación 1ª de la patente protege:
“1. Una
“1 U suspensión ió de
d cereall homogénea
h é y estable
t bl que tiene
ti ell sabor
b y aroma
de la avena natural, que comprende β-glucanos intactos de la materia prima y
que tiene una viscosidad menor de 0.5 Pas a temperatura ambiente, que se
obtiene mediante las siguientes operaciones: [cont.]
A) Moler en seco o en húmedo, avena prensada u otro tipo de avena tratada
con calor o humedad para obtener una harina,
B) Suspender la harina de la avena en agua, si la harina ha sido producida

mediante molienda en seco,
C) Opcionalmente, centrifugar o decantar la suspensión con objeto de retirar

las partículas gruesas de fibra,
D) Tratar la suspensión con β-amilasa, que produce de forma específica,

unidades de maltosa y no presenta efecto de glucanasa y proteinasa, hasta
alcanzar una viscosidad de 3 a 0.1 Pas en el intervalo de régimen de
cizallamiento de 10 a 100 s(-1),
E) Tratar la suspensión con α-amilasa

α amilasa que produce de forma específica
unidades de maltosa y no presenta efecto de glucanasa y proteinasa, hasta
alcanzar una viscosidad de < 0,5 Pas en el intervalo de régimen de
cizallamiento de 10 a 100 s (-1),
( ),
F) Preferentemente, homogeneizar la suspensión sometida a tratamiento

enzimático y
G) Someter la suspensión a tratamiento UHT (UHT) = Temperatura Ultra Alta)

para obtener un producto estéril y al mismo tiempo inactivar las enzimas
añadidas”
DÉCIMO SEXTO.- El procedimiento descrito para obtener el mencionado producto,
tiene siete etapas
etapas, de las cuales A
A, B
B, D
D, E y G
G, proporciona las características
esenciales del producto, mientras que las etapas C y F son opcionales. De dichas
etapas necesarias, el procedimiento de los demandados difiere en dos de ellas,
en primer lugar, el procedimiento de Liquats no utiliza la encima β-amilasa, y
en segundo lugar utiliza la encima β-glucanasa
.../...
VIGÉSIMO SEGUNDO.- A mi juicio el experto entendería que la patente se
refiere a β-glucanos intactos como aquellos que no resultan degradados
mediante el uso de encimas con efecto glucanasa, en los que se haya evitado
la rotura química de las cadenas de β-glucanos, en tanto que en el
procedimiento reivindicado excluye expresamente el uso de encimas con
efecto glucanasa
glucanasa.
“D) Tratar la suspensión con β-amilasa, que produce de forma específica, unidades
de maltosa y no presenta efecto de glucanasa y proteinasa
proteinasa, hasta alcanzar una
viscosidad de 3 a 0.1 Pas en el intervalo de régimen de cizallamiento de 10 a 100
s(-1),
E) Tratar la suspensión con α-amilasa que produce de forma específica unidades
de maltosa y no presenta efecto de glucanasa y proteinasa, hasta alcanzar una
viscosidad de < 00,5
5 Pas en el intervalo de régimen de cizallamiento de 10 a 100 s (-
1)”
VIGÉSIMO SÉPTIMO.- El procedimiento difiere en dos puntos concretos, primero, el
procedimiento de la demandada no utiliza la β-amilasa, etapa D de la reivindicación, y, esto
es esencial, utiliza β-glucanasa, expresamente excluido como he señalado en la
reivindicación primera para caracterizar los β-glucanos como “intactos”. La propia experta
de la demandada la Dra. Hatti-Kaui, reconoción, aunque con dificultades, que se trataba de
procedimientos
di i t diferentes.
dif t
Las diferencias entre el producto patentado y el producto de los demandados: No

infracción. VIGÉSIMO OCTAVO.
OCTAVO.- El producto de los demandados tiene β-glucanos,
β glucanos, pero
no β-glucanos intactos en la forma en la que están definidos en la reividicacion y he
explicado en los fundamentos anteriores, ya que en el procedimiento de fabricación de la
demandada se utiliza ββ-glucanasa,
g , que,
q , como explica
p al Dr. Gislon,, precisamente
p rompen
p
los enlaces beta de los β-glucanos, en consecuencia no se puede evitar el efecto
glucanasa. Por este motivo, el producto de los demandados es diferente y no infinge la
patente, por
p p lo que
q la demanda debe ser desestimada.
FALLO: Desestimo la demanda presentada por el procurador D. Ignacio López, en

representación de OATLY AB, en consecuencia debo absolver a LIQUATS VEGETALS, S.A,
CASA SANTIVERI, S.L. y NUTRITION & SANTE IBERIA, S.L., condenado a la actora al pago
de las costas.
Firmado, Luis Rodríguez Vega
Firmado Vega, magistrado-juez
PUBLICACIÓN.- La presente resolución ha sido leída en audiencia pública por el Sr. Juez que la
firma en el día de su fecha, doy fe.
RECURSOS - Contra esta sentencia cabe interponer recurso de apelación en el plazo de
RECURSOS.
veinte días ante este Juzgado, para su resolución por la Audiencia Provincial.
Requisitos de patentabilidad y causas de nulidad de una reiv.
Una reiv.
reiv en una solict
solict. de patente es patentable si su materia simultáneamente
(1) tiene carácter técnico/tecnicalidad

(2) no está excluida de patentabilidad (es patent eligible en US)
(3) es nueva (tiene novedad)
(4) implica una actividad inventiva (tiene non-obviousness en US)
(5) es aplicable industrialmente (tiene patentable utility en US)
(6) tiene una descripción suficientemente clara y completa para ser ejecutable
(7) no adiciona materia que vaya más allá del contenido de la solicitud presentada
(8) es clara, concisa y soportada por la descripción
(9) titiene unidad
id d con las
l otras
t reivs.
i d
de lla misma
i solicitud
li it d d
de patente
t t
(10) está redactada de forma apropiada (i.e. según la ley, jurisprudencia y guías o
manuales de examen)
La falta de cualquiera de los requisitos 8-10 no es causa de oposición/nulidad

de una reiv. en una patente concedida
35 USC 100.
100 Definitions.
D fi iti
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates
(a)The term “invention”
invention means invention or discovery [['discovery'
discovery inter
alia in USA Constitution 1789, and in Spanish Constitution 1812].
(b)The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a
new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of
matter, or material... [but there are not 'use claims' in US, IN...]
...
(j) The term "claimed invention" means the subject matter defined by a
claim in a patent or an application for a patent.
35 USC 101. Inventions p

patentable [[statutory
y classes of
claims]
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
[article of] manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title [["use"
use is not a class of claim].
Technical features ( = elements) in EP
claims Two part claims in the EPO
claims.
EPC Rule 43(1). Form and content of claims
(1) The claims shall define the matter for which protection is
sought in terms of the technical features of the invention.
invention
Wherever appropriate, claims shall contain [in a two-part claim]:
(a) a statement indicating the designation [i.e. the 'subject'] of the

subject-matter of the invention and those technical features which
are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but
which, in combination, form part of the prior art;
(b) a characterising portion, beginning with the expression

characterised in that
"characterised that" or "characterised
characterised by"
by and specifying the
technical features for which, in combination with the features
stated under sub-paragraph
p g p (a),
( ) p
protection is sought
g

A litte of elementary theory of sets
In elementary theory of sets, a set is a single whole, collection, aggregate... of

individual things referred to as members that belong to the set. A set is defined by a
d fi i sentence,
defining t suchh as: "Th
"The students
t d t that
th t are in
i this
thi classroom".
l "
The set of all things under discussion in any context is called the universal set (U)
of this particular kind of things
things.
The set A1 is a subset of set A (or "A includes A1") if every member of A1 is a
member of A ((A1  A).
) If A1  A and A1  A,, A1 is a p proper
p subset of A,,
represented by A1  A.
For teaching purposes, closed surfaces ("Venn diagrams", 1880) are used:
A A1
U
A patent claim is a defining sentence of a technical set (i.e. a
technical "subject-matter")
subject-matter ), within a universe of technical
entities/products or technical activities/methods/processes,
that we claim is our "protected
protected property
property"..
"Technical universes" will be kinds/categories of claims: electromechanical entities
((apparatus,
pp , devices,, machines,, articles of manufacture),
), chemical entities,, biological
g
entities, general industrial activities, preparation processes, etc. To simplify, the
representation of the universal set (U) will be omitted here. Rectangles will be used as
boundaries or "fences"
"boundaries" fences of our property (not circles or ellipses
ellipses, because rectangles are
easier to draw with the Power Point, and they can be easily filled with information).
U Thus, within the [[not drawn]]
universe/category of apparatus:
A1 represents a patent claim. A2 and A
3 representt other
th patent
t t claims.
l i
A1 A2 A3 Since A2 & A3 are [proper] subsets

of A1,
A1 both claims A2 & A3 are
dependent from claim A1. A3
 A2 & A2  A1 => A3  A1. A3
will
ill be
b written
itt as depndt.
d dt from
f A2
Distinction: to be dependent from vs. to be written as dependent from
Closed surfaces represent "claim scopes" or "scopes of
claimed subject matter":
matter : a teaching tool
"The
The extent [scope
[scope, ambit] of the protection conferred by a patent shall be
determined by the claims " (Art. 69.1 EPC)
The protected subject matter is sometimes more than the claimed subject
matter.
For teaching
F t hi purposes, the th scope off claimed
l i d subject
bj t matter
tt is
i here
h represented
t d
by a closed surface on paper/screen plane (a rectangle is used, and not a circle or
an ellipse, because the former is easy to draw with the Power Point, and it can be
easily filled with information)
A rectangle like this will be used here to represent

the "claim scope" or "scope of claimed subject
matter" corresponding to a given claim.

Claim 1. Preamble-P comprising
p g A + B [[+ anything
y g else implicitly]
p y]
Claim 2. Preamble-P comprising A + B + C
Claim 3
3. Preamble
Preamble-P
P comprising A + B + C + D
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.

Claim 2 is dependent from/on ["from" will be used here] Claim 1.
Claim 3 is dependent both from Claim 2 and from Claim 1 [but it usually
will
ill b
be written
itt as dependent
d d t from
f Claim
Cl i 2,
2 as base
b claim]
l i ]
Limitations, elements, steps, relationships...
in US claims. Improvement (Jepson) claims
37 CFR 1.75 Claims
...
(e) Where the nature of the case admits, as in the case of an improvement,
any independent claim should contain in the following order: (1) A preamble
comprising
i i a generall description
d i ti off all
ll the
th elements
l t or steps
t off the
th claimed
l i d
combination which are conventional or known,
(2) A phrase such as “wherein the improvement comprises,” and
(3) Those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion
of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or
improved portion.
608.01(m) Form of Claims [R-7]

...
The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the
description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a
combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively
and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the
claimed combination.

Terminology 1: What are we talking about?
invention [blurred, undefined] ≈ inventors' contribution to the art [technique]
claimed invention = [technical] subject matter defined by the claims
claim = definition of the subject matter for which protection is sought

subject matter in claims is defined in terms of:
- technical features (EPO) [usually]
- limitations (US) elements
- elements, steps, means & relationships (EPO + US)
protection? In general, to protect is to keep (someone or something)

from being harmed, lost, etc. But, what is patent protection?

The claims shall define the [subject-]matter for which protection is
sought [claims do not define 'the invention']. They shall be clear and
concise and be supported by the description.
description
USPTO - MPEP 608.01(k)

( ) Statutory
y Requirement
q of Claims
35 U.S.C. 112 requires that the applicant shall particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which he or she regards as his or her
i
invention.
ti Th
The portion
ti off th
the application
li ti iin which
hi h h
he or she
h d does thi
this fforms
the claim or claims. This is an important part of the application, as it is
the definition of that [[subject
j matter]] for which pprotection is ggranted.
Patent protection is the set of

exclusive
l i negative i rights
i h that
h
prevent third parties from carrying
out any of the prohibited acts
defined by patent laws in the
articles of "rights conferred by a
patent"" or ""acts off iinfringement"
fi "
265
Art. 59 LP2015. Prohibición de explotación directa
d lla invención
de i ió [cf. Art. 29 CPC1975]
1. La ppatente [[la reivindicación,, en la práctica]
p ] confiere a su titular el
derecho a impedir a cualquier tercero que no cuente con su
consentimiento:
a) La fabricación, el ofrecimiento, la introducción en el comercio o la
utilización de un producto objeto de la patente o la importación o
posesión del mismo para alguno de los fines mencionados
mencionados.
b) La utilización de un procedimiento objeto de la patente o el
ofrecimiento
f i i t de d di
dicha
h utilización,
tili ió cuandod ell ttercero sabe
b o llas
circunstancias hacen evidente que la utilización del procedimiento está
prohibida sin el consentimiento del titular de la patente.
patente
c) El ofrecimiento, la introducción en el comercio o la utilización del
producto directamente obtenido por el procedimiento objeto de la patente
o la importación o posesión de dicho producto para alguno de los fines
mencionados" ((análogo g al Art. 64.2 EPC).)
continúa...
13.09.2013: signed [but not
yet ratified] by all EU
countries, except Spain,
Poland and Croatia
Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)

(UPCA), 2013
(not yet in force)

Art. 25 UPCA. Right to prevent the direct use
[di
[direct
t exploitation]
l it ti ] off th
the invention
i ti [cf.
[ f Art.
A t 29 CPC1975]
A patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party not
having the proprietor's consent from the following:
(a) making, offering, placing on the market or using a product which is

the subject matter of the patent [of the claim, in practice], or importing
or storing the product for those purposes;
(b) using a process which is the subject matter of the patent [of the
claim] or, where the third party knows, or should have known, that the use
of the process is prohibited without the consent of the patent proprietor,
offering the process for use within the territory of the Contracting Member
States in which that patent has effect;
(c) offering, placing on the market, using, or importing or storing for

those purposes a product obtained directly by a [obtaining/making]
process which is the subject matter of the patent [of the claim,
claim in practice]
practice].
268 UPCA 2013 (not yet in force) Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Rights conferred by a claim depend from its type, i.e.
the claimed subject matter
The proprietor has the right to prevent any third party from the following:
a)) when
h what h iis claimed
l i d iis a PRODUCT or ENTITY
ENTITY:
- obtaining / making / manufacturing / preparing / synthesizing...
- offering Wh possible
When ibl it is
i advisable
d i bl tot
- placing on the market (e.g. selling) get claims on commercial
- using products,, and their components
p p if
- importing,
i i and
d these can be sold separately
- storing / stocking
b) when what is claimed is a PROCESS, METHOD OR ACTIVITY:

- using, and
- offering
ff i
c) when what is claimed is a PROCESS TO OBTAIN A PRODUCT:

- using the process and offering the process (because it is a process), and
- all the rights granted in (a) in relation to the product directly obtained by
the
h [obtaining]
[ b i i ] process
What can be patented:
two basic types of claims,
claims with a sub
sub-type
type
PRODUCT or ENTITY
- ELECTROMECHANICAL (including medical devices)
- CHEMICAL (material, pure or mixed, including foods & cosmetics)
- PHARMACEUTICAL ((chemical
h i l ffor h human/animal
/ i l th
therapy, surgery or di
diagnosis)
i )
- MICROBIOLOGICAL (alive and microscopic)
- BIOLOGICAL (replicating; cf. Directive 44/98/EEC)
- GENETIC INFORMATION (DNA, cDNA, etc.)
PROCESS, METHOD or ACTIVITY

- IN GENERAL: any activity/process with industrial applicability, sometimes in a
g
given sequence,
q , including
gpprocess of using
g or use of a p
product ((claims of medical
use have special draftings)
- IN PARTICULAR: process to obtain a product

product, that also protects the product
directly obtained

What is claimed vs. what is protected
Cl i
Claim Wh t is
What i claimed
l i d Wh t is
What i protected
t t d
- The industrial product E

- Any mixture involving E (e.g.: E+F, E+carrier)
"A product E" The industrial - Any process/method (e.g. use) involving E
product E - Any preparation process (X, Y...) of product E
"A process X The industrial - The industrial process X obtaining product E

to obtain E" process X
p - Any
y industrial p
prep.
p pprocess incl. the steps
p of X
obtaining E - The industrial product E directly obtained by
process X
"claimed" = subject matter defined in a claim, whose protection is sought

"protected" = product/process whose direct and indirect exploitation is prevented
Types / kinds / classes / categories of claims
at the EPO and the USPTO
EPO (case-law
( l based)
b d) USPTO (statutory)
( t t t )
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
product (chem, pharma, bio) composition of matter
entity apparatus (machine, system...) machine
" " (object, article...) article of manufacture
process/method to obtain process/method of making

process/method
/ th d (in
(i general)
l) process/method
/ th d off doing
d i
activity use of X as/for (non-medical use) " " "
product for use in the treatment method of treatment of a patient
(first & second medical uses) (no first medical use)

A claim is a defining sentence of a set of
technical embodiments.
It starts with a noun phrase, in the singular
A noun phrase or nominal phrase is a phrase which has a noun (or
indefinite pronoun) as its head word, or which performs the same
grammatical function as such a p
g phrase. In addition to the head, a noun
phrase may contain one or more determiners, premodifiers and
postmodifiers. Examples:
determiner(s) premodifier(s) noun postmodifier(s)

----------------- ------------------- --------- -------------------------
a very small dog
red and blue chairs for children
the two wonderful recipes of yours for blueberry pie
Source: Wikipedia

Standard claim format ('AND claim' in EPO; 'combination claim' in USPTO)
A claim is a single defining sentence of a technical set

set, without periods/full
stops, heavily punctuated, with three parts:
The ppreamble [[designation
g of subject
j matter]:
] introduction that p
plays
y the role
of "subject", usually in the form of a noun phrase whose noun -in the
singular- determines the claim type/category/kind/class.
- Prevalently in US, and always recommendable, it starts with:
"A/An" in independent claims ("A"a before words that begin with a consonant sound)
"The" in dependent claims [prevalent in US]
and continues with: [[one or more adjectives]
j ] noun ((apparatus,
pp device,
product, compound, composition, method/process, etc.) [for one or several
purposes, of a some type]...
The transitional word/phrase : comprising: [better than including, having,

composed of, etc. Never consisting of !!]
The body : rest of elements, technical features [EPO] or limitations [US],

including
g their inter-relationships
p [[relational elements].
] In g
general,, this is
not a mere lists of parts.
Chemical compositions

many functional elements/features

EP 796.077 B1 (L'Oreal) from WO 96/19180 A1
Markush claims ('OR claims in EPO)
A Markush g groupp is a closed g
group p of alternative elements,, and it is tipically
p y
introduced with the expression "consisting of". The standard drafting is: "... wherein
element A is selected from the group consisting of A1, A2, A3 and A4". For
example: "wherein
wherein the material is a metal selected from the group consisting of
copper, lead, and gold", or "wherein R1 is a radical selected from the group consisting
of hydrogen, methyl, and ethyl".
Shorthand Markush groups can also be drafted simply by using the verbal form
is/are, and with the final member preceded by a conjunction or : "wherein A is A1, A2 ,
or A3
A3";; e.g.: "wherein
wherein R1 is hydrogen, methyl, or ethyl
ethyl"..
In product claims that structurally define a group of chemical products using a general
formula it is very common that the whole claim is a Markush group, the general
formula being then referred to as a Markush formula.
Markush groups can also be used to define alternative electromechanical elements, such as
in: "a
a fastener selected from a group consisting of a nail,
nail a screw, rivet". However,
screw and a rivet However in
practice Markush groups are rarely used for electromechanical elements because generic
words that describe the elements of a group (e.g. a fastener) or functional elements (e.g.
fastening means) provide a broader definition of alternatives
alternatives.
When the whole claim is a single Markush group (e.g. a Markush formula), there is
a high
g probability
p y of being
g considered in unity;
y but there is the risk of leaving
g
outside some potentially interesting alternatives.
Markush claims with three elements (R1, R2 and R4) defined
y respective
by p Markush groups
g p of two members each
The scope of Claim 1 is closed ended, embrancing only 2x2x2 = 8 members
Claim 1. A 1,2,4-trisubstituted benzene of formula R1
R2
R4
wherein:
radical R1 is selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br;
radical R2 is selected from the group consisting of Me and Et; and
radical R4 is selected from the group consisting of NO2 and CN.
Claim 2
2. The benzene according to claim 1
1, wherein R1 is Cl
Cl. Singular
dependency!
Claim 3. The benzene according to claim 2, wherein R2 is Me.
Claim 4. The benzene according to claim 3, wherein R4 is NO2.
Importance order of element selection in dependent claims: R1 > R2 > R4

byy respective
p Markush groups
The scope of Claim 1 is closed ended, embrancing only 2x2x2 = 8 members
Claim 1. A 1,2,4-trisubstituted benzene of formula
R1
R2
R4
wherein:
radical R1 is Cl or Br;
radical R2 is Me or Et; and
radical R4 is NO2 or CN.
Singular
Claim 2. The benzene according to claim 1, wherein R1 is Cl. dependency!
Claim 3. The benzene according to claim 2, wherein R2 is Me.
g to claim 3, wherein R4 is NO2.

Claim 4. The benzene according
279 Alternative shorthand wording Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Scopes of four Markush claims in a singular dependency group
Claim
4
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 1
Singular dependency! Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

280
y respective
by p Markush groups
Claim 1. A 1,2,4-trisubstituted benzene of formula R1

R2
With multiple dependency,
claim scopes are more
difficult to depict with Venn
diagrams (see later)
R4
wherein:
radical R1 is selected from the group consisting of Cl and Br;
radical R2 is selected from the group consisting of Me and Et; and
radical R4 is selected from the group consisting of NO2 and CN.
Multiple
Claim 2
2. The benzene according to claim 1
1, wherein R1 is Cl
Cl. d
dependency!
d !
Claim 3. The benzene according to any one of claims 1-2, wherein R2 is Me.
Claim 4. The benzene according to any one of claims 1-3, wherein R4 is NO2.
Importance order of element selection in dependent claims: R1 > R2 > R4

pharmaceutical product
[definitions of variables R1,

R2 etc
R2, etc. have been deleted] EP 463
463.756
756 B1
B1: ffrom fi
firstt patent
t t
family of Pfizer on sildenafil
Radicals R1,, R2,, R3,, and R5 are defined by

y Markush groups.
g p
Biradical R4, and attachement positions of R5 are also defined.
PCT Rule 6. The Claims
6.3. Manner of Claiming [cf. EPC Rule 43. Form and content of
claims]
(a) The definition of the matter for which protection is sought [done by the
claims, cf. PCT Art. 6] shall be in terms of the technical features of the
invention.
(b) Whenever appropriate, claims shall contain [in a two-part claim]:
(i) [first part] a statement indicating those technical features of the invention which
are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject matter but which, in
combination, are part of the prior art,
(ii) a characterizing portion -preceded by the words "characterized in that,"
"characterized by," "wherein the improvement comprises," or any other words to
g concisely
the same effect- stating y the technical features which,, in combination
with the features stated under (i), it is desired to protect.
(c) Where the national law of the designated State does not require the manner of
claiming provided for in paragraph (b), failure to use that manner of claiming shall
have no effect in that State provided the manner of claiming actually used satisfies
the national law of that State.

Format of a Two-Part Claim (Jepson in US)
First part:
Preamble [introductory noun phrase whose noun determines the category] plus
other elements [with the implied admission that the whole first part is
disclosed in a single piece of prior art, tipically a single document. Sometimes
the whole "first part" is referred to as "preamble", not being confusing by the
context].
t t]
Transitional phrase : characterized in that/characterized by ["wherein the
improvement comprises/ the improvement being"being in US]
Characterizing portion : rest of elements, technical features or limitations
that the claim adds to those of the first part.
part Protection is determined by all
elements together ("All elements rule").
a/an
/ .... the/said
th / id
The first time a term is introduced, the indefinite article "a" or "an" should
be used. Later "the" and "said" are used when referring back. Both are
interchangeable, but "said" is old-fashioned legalese, while "the" makes
claim language more accessible to non-professionals
non professionals (cf. WIPO, "Patent
Patent
Drafting Manual", p. 75, 2006).
Claim 1
EP 2 193 731 B1, by Lekue SL, La Llagosta (ES)
Claims related by dependency = they have the same preamble
(therefore, the same type / category / kind / class) and the claiming scope of
the dependent is a subset off the scope off the one it depends ffrom
"Claim 1. A preamble P, comprising: elements A; B; and C".
"Claim 2. A preamble P, comprising: elements A; B; C; and D."
"Claim 2 (simplified). The P's noun according to [PREFERRED WORDING]claim 1,
further comprising element D D."
ALTERNATIVE (NOT PREFERRED) WORDINGS: of, as per, as in claim, as
claimed in, as recited in, as set forth, as defined in, ...
Claim 1: Preamble P
P, comprising A + B + C [+ any]
Claim 2: Preamble P, comprising A + B + C + D [+ any]
Accused embodiment: Preamble P + A + B + C +

D +E falls within the scopes of both claims 2 & 1

Example of claims of the same preamble (same type / category /
kind / class) that
th t are nott related
l t d by
b dependency
d d
"Claim 1. A preamble, comprising: elements A; B; and C." [plus anything else]
"Claim 10. A preamble, comprising: elements B; C; and D." [plus anyth. else]
There is no dependency between claims 1 and 10 !

The accused embodiment
Claim
Cl i 1.
1 P
Preamble
bl P,
P A+B+C+D falls
f ll within
ithi the
th
comprising: A + B + C [+ any] scope of both claims
Embodiment:
Preamble P +
A+B+C+D
Claim 10. Preamble P, comprising: B + C + D [+ any]

Claims written in multiple dependency form
Claim 1
1. A preamble comprising A + B B.
Claim 2. The preamble's noun according to claim 1, further comprising C.
Claim 3. The preamble's noun according to any one of claims 1 or 2, further
comprising DD. ("any + or" = alternatives ; "and" would be improper)
Claim 3, is only one numbered claim, but it includes two actual claims, namely:
- The
Th actual
t l claim
l i 3/1 ("claim
(" l i 3 iinsofar
f it depends
d d on claim 1" as it is
l i 1", i usually
ll
referred to in the EPO), only comprising the elements of numbered claim 1 plus the
element added in claim 3 (A+B+D)
- The actual claim 3/2, comprising the elements of numbred claim 2 plus the
element added in claim 3 (A+B+C+D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singular
g dependency
p y from a multiple
p dependent
p claim
Claim 4. The preamble's noun according to claim 3, further comprising E.
Claim 4 is only one numbered claim,
claim but it includes two actual claims,
claims namely:
- The actual claim 4/3/1, comprising A+B+D+E
- The actual claim 4/3/2,
4/3/2 comprising A+B+C+D+E

Multiple dependency
Single dependency
M lti l dependency
Multiple d d
L t claims
Last l i off EP 2 193 731 B1
Some fees associated to the number of pages and
the number of claims in patent applications
PCT fees (Jan. 2017)
- 14 EUR / page iin excess off 30 (the
(th requestt takes
t k a 5 or more))
(nothing paid for claims -> claims for both USPTO and EPO can be included)
EPO fees (Jan. 2017)

- 15 EUR / page in excess of 35 in appln
appln. (request and seqs
seqs. do not pay)
- 235 EUR / numbered claim in excess of 15 (580 EUR in excess of 50)
USPTO fees (Jan. 2017) standard / small entity / micro entity

- 100 / 50 / 25 USD per each actual claim in excess of 20
- 460 / 230 / 115 USD per each independent claim in excess of 3
- 820 / 410 / 205 USD p
per each claim written in multiple
p dependent
p form
[deterrent!]
Note: In the Spanish Patent & Trademark Office (OEPM) no fees are paid
for number of pages or number of claims.
292
Professional honoraria = major source of expenses
Approximate income of patent attorneys/agents
- US patent attorneys have billing rates within 350-650 $/h

in the USA
- European patent attorneys have billing rates within 150-
350 €/h
- Spanish industrial property agents should charge 190 €/h
when working g at the office,, and 253 €/h when working
g
outside, according to a non-binding recommendation of
their p
professional association.

Multiple dependent claims Elements in effective
claims of a dependency
1(Prod.comprising
( p g A);
) 2(+B);
( ) 3(+C);
( ) 4(+D)
( ) group with 4 formal
claims drafted in
Effective claims and their ELEMENTS standard format and
"according to any of the
1 2 3/1 4/1
preceding claims",
A A+B A+C A+D
adding an extra element
in every dependent
3/2 4/2 claim.
A+B+C A+B+D 1 A product comprising A.
1. A
2. The product according to
claim 1, further comprising B.
4/3/1
A+C+D 3. The product according to
any of the preceding claims,
further comprising C.
4/3/2 4. The product according to
A+B+C+D any of the preceding claims,
further comprising D.
D
Simple dependent claims
1 2 3 4
A A+B A+B+C A+B+C+D
Reivindicaciones FORMALES, con su NUMERACIÓN . El nº total de reivs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 .... n efectivas en un grupo
Reivindicaciones efectivas, con la NOTACIÓN recomendada con n reivs.
reivs formales
1 2 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 redactadas mediante
3/2 4/2 5/2 6/2 dependencia múltiple
4/3/1 5/3/1 6/3/1 "según cualquiera de
4/3/2 5/3/2 6/3/2 las reivs. anteriores"
5/4/1
/ / 6/4/1
/ /
es 2n-1
5/4/2 6/4/2 Así p.ej., para n = 15
5/4/3/1 6/4/3/1 reivs. formales, que en
5/4/3/2 6/4/3/2 la EPO no pagan nada
6/5/1 extra, el número total de
6/5/2 reivs. efectivas sería de
6/5/3/1
214 = 16.384.
6/5/3/2 En la USPTO de una reiv.
6/5/4/1 múltiple no puede depender
otra reiv. múltiple. Pero, si
6/5/4/2
se permitiera hacer lo
6/5/4/3/1 anterior,, habría que
q p pagar
g
6/5/4/3/2 [(16.384 - 20) x 80] + (13x
Nº TOTAL de reivindicaciones EFECTIVAS en el grupo . 780) = 1.319.260 USD en
concepto de reivs. ((ver
1(20) - 2(21) - 4(22) - 8(23) - 16(24) - 32(25) .... 2nn-11
tasas en USPTO)
DEPENDENCY GROUP = claim set formed by one
independent claim and all claims that -directly or through
others-, are dependent from the independent
Dependency schemes can be shown with arrows or simple lines to represent a

dependency between claims.
1234 Thi group has

This h a 'tree'
't ' with
ith two
t dependency
d d 'chains'
' h i '

56
(1) is the only independent

claim 1 2 3 4
5/1 OTHER CASE

1  2  5/2 (1) is the only independent claim
 (2) - (4) are claims with simple dependency
3  4  5/4 (5) has a multiple dependency ("according to any of
 the preceding claims"; thus, it defines
5/3 four effective claims,, with the indicated notation

To make drafting simpler, definition references can be
made
d to
t claims
l i off different
diff t category
t (no in US for ind. claims)
1. A product, comprising: elements A; B; and C.
--------------
10. Use of the product comprising: elements A; B; and C, for doing ...
SAME
10' (simplified).
( i lifi d) Use
U off the
th product
d t as defined
d fi d in i claim 1 for
l i 1, d i ... PROTECTION
f doing
--------------
20. A p
preparation
p process
p of the p
product,, comprising
p g elements A;; B;; and C,,
comprising the following steps: (i)...; (ii)...; and (iii).. SAME PROTECTION
20' (simplified). A preparation process of the product as defined in claim 1,
comprising the following steps: (i)...; (ii)...; and (iii)...
---------------
30. (simplified) An apparatus for carrying out the preparation process as
30
defined in claim 20, comprising: elements H, I and J.
-------------------
40. (simplified) A detection method of the presence of the product as defined
in claim 1, comprising the use as defined in claim 10, etc.

Examples of dependency groups formed by claims of different
categories drafted by using multiple references [no multiple
dependencies] to a previous group of claims
1.-7.
1. 7. : Seven claims of "Method
Method for [doing something]
something]",, with the claim tree:
12345

67
8. A device for carrying out the method as defined in any of claims 1-7, etc. etc.
8(1)  8(2)  8(3)  8(4)  8(5)


8(6)  8(7)
9. A computer program [product] comprising computer program code

instructions adapted to perform all the steps of the method as defined in any
off claims
l i 1-7.
17
This is a claim notation
proposed by the author
9(1)  9(2)  9(3)  9(4)  9(5)

298 9(6)  9(7) Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
A patent claim is invalid for lack of novelty or for lack of
inventive step when a prior art embodiment (red cercle) falling
within the scope of the claim is known or obvious
Prior art embodiment:

claims 1 and 2 are invalid, but
2 the other claims are
1 unaffected
4 5 6 4 5 6
3 3
Original
g claims Unaffected claims ((that may y suffer
from lack of unity a posteriori
2-1-4-5-6
I
3 Claim tree Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
299
Prior art embodiment: claims 1, 4,

5 and 6 are invalid, but the other
2 claims are unaffected
1
2
4 5 6
3
3
Original claims Unaffected claims (that may suffer

from lack of unity a posteriori
Prior art embodiment: If an

independent claim (1 in this
2 example) is new (or it involves an
1 inventive step)
step), by definition all
claims dependent on it are new
(or they involve an inventive step)
4 5 6 CAREFUL: The opposite is not true:

3 if an independient claim is invalid,
the claims dependendent on it will
be invalid or not, dependending on
Original
g claims are new and the specific case (cf.
(cf previous
inventive (they are valid if they
examples)
fulfill the rest of validity
requirements)
[EPO Guidelines] G-VII, 13. Dependent claims; claims in
different categories
If an independent claim is new and non-obvious, there is no need
t investigate
to i ti t the
th noveltylt andd the
th non-obviousness
b i off any claims
l i
dependent thereon, except in situations where the subject-matter of a
dependent claim has a later effective date than the independent claim
and intermediate documents are to be considered (see F-VI, 2.4.3).
Similarly, if a claim to a product is new and non-obvious
Similarly non obvious there is no
need to investigate the novelty and non-obviousness of any claims
for a p
process which inevitably y results in the manufacture of that
product or of any claims for a use of that product. In particular,
analogy processes, i.e. processes which themselves would
otherwise
th i nott involve
i l an inventive
i ti step,
t are nevertheless
th l
patentable insofar as they provide a novel and inventive product
(see T 119/82).
119/82) It should,
should however,
however be noted that in cases where the
product, process and use claims have different effective dates, a
separate examination as to novelty and inventive step may still be
necessary in view of intermediate documents.
302
THE LITERAL INFRINGEMENT TEST IS ANALOGOUS TO THE
TEST OF NOVELTY/INVENTIVE STEP: a patent is infringed -with with a
literal interpretation of claims- when the questioned embodiment
associated to a p proven prohibited
p act (red
( cercle)) falls within the
protection scope of at least one valid claim
Questioned embodiment
2
1
There is literal infringement of
independent claim 1, and of
d
dependent
d t claim
l i 2.2
4 5 6
But dependent claims 3, 4, 5 and 6
3 are nott iinfringed
fi d
P t t claims
Patent l i ((considered
id d tto b
be valid)
lid)

TEST OF NOVELTY/INVENTIVE STEP: a patent is infringed -in in a
p act (red
2
1
There is literal infringement of
independent claim 1, and of
d
dependent
d t claims
l i 4,
4 5,
5 and
d 6.
6
4 5 6
But dependent claims 2 and 3 are
3 nott iinfringed
fi d
Patent
P t t claims
l i ((considered
id d
to be valid)

TEST OF NOVELTY/INVENTIVE STEP: a patent is infringed -in in a
p act (red
When there is no literal
2 infringement of independent
1
claim, by definition there is no
literal infringement of any of the
dependent claim thereon
4 5 6 But the opposite is not true: An
3 independent claim may be
literally infringed whereas some
of the dependent claims thereon
Patent
P t t claims
l i ((considered
id d are not literally infringed (cf.
to be valid) previous examples)

PROGRAM


Art. 57 LP2015. Obligación
g de facilitar información a terceros.
2. Quien incluya en un producto, en sus etiquetas o embalajes, o en
cualquier clase de anuncio o impreso, cualesquiera menciones
tendentes a producir la impresión de que existe la protección de
una solicitud de patente o de una patente ya concedida deberá
hacer constar el número de las mismas...
Marking of products as 'patented' :

Public information or marketing trick?
La razón genuina para solicitar patentes
P
Para di
disfrutar
f t -o licenciar-
li i ell d
derecho
h a impedir
i di la
l explotación
l t ió ded
la invención de forma eficaz, lo que se presumirá si, y sólo si:
- La invención es susceptible de ser imitada.

- Se confía en poder detectar la eventual infracción.
- Se confía en p
poder p
probar la eventual infracción.
- Se confía en que la posible condena del infractor compensaría los
gastos y molestias en patentar
patentar, pleitear,
pleitear etc
etc.
- Se considera que la invención es patentable.
- Se
S confía
fí en convertir
ti las
l solicitudes
li it d d de patentes
t t en patentes
t t
concedidas y válidas en los países de interés

Otras buenas razones p
para solicitar patentes
p
(en circunstancias en que no importa la validez o eficacia)
- Para obtener desgravaciones fiscales por inversión en I+D+i

(p.ej. mediante el Patent Box)
- Para
P publicar
bli a voluntad
l t d y precio
i moderado,
d d con intención
i t ió ded
impedir que otro lo patente (alternativa a las publicaciones
defensivas p
defensivas, p.ej.
ej nota en Research Disclosure)
Disclosure). No tiene sentido si
se hacen publicaciones científicas.
- Para embellecer una licencia de know how acompañándola de
una licencia de patente.
- Para dar una imagen tecnológica avanzada, que impresione y
pueda servir para obtener homologaciones o subvenciones.
- Por motivos de marketing: animar a empleados y vendedores,
poder
d marcar p.ej. j "patented"
" t t d" o "patent
" t t pending".
di "
- Para confundir a competidores respecto a los verdaderos
intereses del solicitante
solicitante.
The most relevant
patent offices for a
S
Spanish
i h applicant
li t
PCT
system

Patent procedure in a office with substantive
examination (simplified)
( i lifi d)
Appln. (nat/PCT) The application can be withdrawn or abandoned by the applicant

D i i
Decisions can b
be appealed
l d by
b applicant/proprietor
li t/ i t or b
by opponentt
Examination for
official secrets
Application
Formal rejected
examination
Register
Class., Search & Patent
Written Opinion Decision
ec s o granted
Publ. A (+ SR) Publication B
Substantive Opposition Expiration after

examination (nullity action) max. 20 years

Substantive examination at selected patent offices
Office Exam Time limit for filing
g .
US (EEUU) yes none (automatic at filing)
CN (China) yes 3 years from filing or priority
JP (Japan) IP5 offices
ffi yes 3 years from filing (also by third parties)
KO (Korea) yes 5 years from filing (also by third parties)
EP (EPO) yes 6 months after Search Report publication
DE (Germany) yes 7 years from filing (also by third parties)
FR (France) no
CH (Switzerland) no
NL (Netherlands) no
GB (Great Britain) yes 6 months after Application publication
IT (Italy) no
SE ((Sweden)) yes
y
BE (Belgium) no
AT (Austria) yes
DK (Denmark) yes
FI (Finland) yes
ES1986 (Spain) optional 3 months after Search Report publication
ES2015 (Spain) yes (idem)
Some jargon and peculiarities in US
conception (USA) = the mental part of the inventive process
extended technical arm (USA) = someone who helps to reduce an invention to practice,
although not an inventor
reduction to practice (USA) = completion of the inventive act by carrying out the
invention and finding a use for it
provisional application (USA) = a US priority application which must be replaced by a
regular application before it can lead to a granted patent. It is not published.
continuation application (USA) = a new filing of a US application with unaltered
specification to allow presentation of new claims
continuation-in-part
continuation in part application (USA) = a new filing of a US application,
application with alterations
or additions to the specification
reissue ((USA)) = a p
procedure whereby
y defects in a g
granted US p
patent may
y be corrected on
application by the patentee
Patent term: For US applns. filed before 8 June 1995, duration was 17 years from grant or
20 years ffrom fili
filing, whichever
hi h iis llonger. For
F US applns.
l fil
filed
d on or after
ft that
th t date,
d t duration
d ti
is 20 years from filing, applicable to divisionals, continuations and continuations-in-part.
Two kinds of extensions of patent term are possible: those based on 35 USC 154 (b), for
all kinds off products, and those based on Hatch-Waxman Act, only for f medicinal products
Headquarters Munich
P h Höf
PschorrHöfe
Headquarters Munich Branch at The Hague

Isar building
Vienna sub-office
Berlin sub-office
About 85% of patents (not utility models) with effects in Spain, come via
the European Patent Office
EPO states, 2018 : members 38, extension 2, validation 4

Total EP applications over 5 years (2014-2018)

2018 Origin of EP applications

2018 Shares in EP appls. originating from EPC countries

Granted EP patents over 5 years (2014-2018)

Validation countries of granted European patents
DE, FR, GB
G > 90%
%
IT ≈ 75%
ES NL
ES, NL, SE,
SE CH/LI 60 70%
60-70%
BE AT,
BE, AT DK,
DK FI,
FI IE,
IE PT
PT, GR
GR, LU
LU, MC
MC, CY 50-60%
50 60%

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is mainly used today "for buying
time" ["Para Comprar Tiempo" in Spanish], since it represents a simple and
affordable
ff d bl (f (fees slightly
li htl above
b 3
3.000
000 EUR) way off kkeepingi open theth
possibility of patenting in virtually all industrialized countries (not yet
Argentina),
g ), either nationallyy or via the EPO,, for 18 months,, i.e. from month 12th
until month 30th from priority (in blue the 151 members in 2017)

Trend in no. of PCT applications along the ten years 2004-13
The PCT system is very popular!

How to get patent protection in several countries?
The most typical patenting strategy: using the PCT procedure to
'buy' 18 months of time before making a much larger investment
Draftingg of the
priority application
priority year
año de prioridad
 0 12 18 30 31 meses
Invención Inicio
PCT de lasEP
enters vías nacionales/europea
and national appls (US, JP...)
priority date, first application
1ª solicitud,fecha de prioridad
Solicitud PCT (o EP,US,etc)
PCT application date
Publicación de la(A
publ. applns. solicitud
docs.)
Cgranting
ti ió (B
Concesión d d
docs)...
t t)
de patentes
Duration = de
20 años Fin 20 la
years from
duración de las patentes
application date (PCT in this case)

Typical strategies for patenting in several territories
Loop PCT = “Para
Para Comprar Tiempo”
Tiempo
From: Bernabé Zea

World distribution of land
(193 states,
states 48 of them considered "Least
Least Developed Countries"
Countries , UN 2015)
World population (2014): about 7.240 million

World distribution of people per country (2014)
World total:
ca. 7.240 million
3.600 half of total
EU (28 states): ca.

ca 507 million

Where [i.e. in which countries] to invest in trying to
get a [granted] patent?

World distribution of GDP
CA RU
GB
DE
CN KR
US FR JP
IT IN
ES
BZ
AU
It is close to World distribution of interest in patenting,

p g,
modulated by type of technology, patent enforcement ability,
prosecution easiness and total cost
Top 30 countries by GDP (2019 estimates)
= most important national patent offices
not a
patent
area,
yet
not in Paris Convention !
not in PCT !

= EPC countries
= enforcement difficulties and/or too high cost
Worldwide IP filings, 2017

Total patent applications, 2017

Patent applications at the top 5 offices, 2017

Patents in force at the top 7 offices, 2017

From about half of
the inventions
worldwide, a single
patent and/or utility
p y
model appl. is filed,
typically by
residents.
In myy opinion,
p , many
y
of them merely seek
non-genuine benefits
derived from: better
CV, better tech.
image marketing,
image, marketing
lower taxes, rewards,
subsidies, etc.
Some of them are
simply 'foolish'
foolish .
World distribution of languages
((approx.
pp number of first-language
g g speakers)
p )
World population (2014): about 7.240 million

Rank Language Speakers (million) SOME OTHER LANGUAGES
1 Chinese 1,197 Language Speakers (million)
2 Spanish 399
German 100
3 English 335
4 Hindi 240 Korean 80
-- [Arabic] 242 French 70
5 Portuguese 203 Catalan-Valencian-Balear 7.7
6 Bengali 189
Galician 3.5
7 Russian 166
8 J
Japanese 128 Basque 06
0.6

http://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size (2015) & Wikipedia
PCT by publication language, 2004-2018

Number of ES Applns. and Patents - from Spain and Total
Applns Patents
Applns Patents
from from
Total Total
Spain Spain
ES-2006 3.098 3.352 1.895 2.107
ES-2007 3.244 3.439 2.317 2.603
ES-2008 3.599 3.783 2.017 2.202
ES-2009 3.566 3.712 2.328 2.507
ES-2010 3 541
3.541 3 670
3.670 2 457
2.457 2 669
2.669
ES-2011 3.398 3.528 2.582 2.719
ES-2012 3.219 3.361 2.537 2.653
ES-2013 2.986 3.133 2.745 2.893
ES-2014 2.902 3.031 2.911 3.101
ES 2015
ES-2015 2 760
2.760 2 882
2.882 2 274
2.274 2 423
2.423
ES-2016 2.711 2.849 2.087 2.194
ES-2017
S 0 2.150
50 2.286
86 1.842
8 1.944
9
ES-2018 (not avail.) 1.578 (not avail.) (not avail.)

Data from web pages of patent offices
Number of WO Applns. - from Spain and Total
Applns Patents
Applns
from from Patents Total
Total
Spain Spain
WO-2006 1.202 149.643 ( not applicable )
WO 2010
WO-2010 1 770
1.770 164 354
164.354 ( nott applicable
li bl )
WO-2012 1.705 195.345 ( not applicable
pp )
WO-2015
O 201 1 30
1.530 21 230
217.230 ( not applicable )
WO-2017
WO 2017 1.418 243.519 ( not applicable )

Number of EP Applns. and Patents - from Spain and Total
Applns Applns Patents Patents

from Spain Total from Spain Total
EP-2006 1.102 135.358 361 62.777

EP-2007 1.275 141.231 331 54.700
EP-2008 1 318
1.318 146.244 416 59.809
EP-2009 1.255 134.511 349 51.952
EP-2010 1.430 151 015
151.015 392 58 117
58.117
EP-2011 1.404 142.822 381 62.108
EP-2012 1.544 148.562 405 65.655
EP-2013 1.504 148.027 395 66.712
EP-2014 1.471 152.703 467 64.613
EP 2015
EP-2015 1 518
1.518 160 004
160.004 511 68 419
68.419
EP-2016 1.560 159.316 752 95.940
EP-2017 1.671 166.594 805 105.635
EP-2018 1.776 174.317 964 127.625

Number of US Applns. and Patents - from Spain and Total

US-2006 868 417.453 373 162.509
US-2007 1.080 439.578 350 160.306
US-2008 1.294 466.258 386 154.699
US-2009 1.224 458.901 415 165.213
US 2010
US-2010 1 470
1.470 479 332
479.332 484 207 915
207.915
US-2011 1.597 504.663 528 221.350
US-2012 1.704 530.915 708 246.464
US-2013 1.820 564.007 739 265.979
US-2014 1.765 579.873 862 303.930
US 2015
US-2015 1 840
1.840 578 121
578.121 857 295 460
295.460
US-2016 1.902 607.753 940 304.568
US-2017 2.138 604.298 927 315.366
US-2018 (not avail.) 595.683 964 306.909
Fiscal Year
Data

Number of CN Applns. and Patents - from Spain and Total

CN-2006 260 210.490 52 57.786

CN-2007 520 245.161 239 67.948
CN-2008 491 289.838 254 93.706
CN-2009 416 314.573 274 128.489
CN-2010 480 391.177 297 135.110
CN-2011 592 526.412 307 172.113
CN 2012
CN-2012 410 562 022
562.022 288 200 974
200.974
CN-2013 378 825.136 279 207.688
CN-2014 340 928.177 370 233.228
CN-2015 342 1.101.864 414 359.316
CN-2016 393 1.338.503 378 404.208
CN-2017 (not avail.) 1.381.594 381 420.144
CN-2018 (not avail.) 2.072.311 (not avail.) 1.479.062

Number of JP Applns. and Patents - from Spain and Total

JP-2006 222 408.674 26 141.399

JP-2007 242 396.291 36 164.954
JP-2008 257 391.002 63 176.950
JP-2009 218 348.596 80 193.349
JP-2010 240 344.598 81 222.693
JP-2011 226 342.610 98 238.323
JP-2012 264 342 796
342.796 127 274 791
274.791
JP-2013 234 328.436 146 277.079
JP-2014 242 333.084 132 227.142
JP-2015 243 325.581 163 189.358
JP-2016 260 324.861 189 203.087
JP-2017 (not avail.) 324.584 (not avail.) 199.577
JP-2018 (not avail.) 318.841 (not avail.) 194.525

ES patent applications from Spain in 2015,
by applicant type and by region
www.obs-edu.com

Major applicants of Spanish national patents, 2018
Fuente: OEPM

EPO applications from Spain, by region, 2014-2015
www.obs-edu.com

Main Spanish applicants of European patents, 2018
https://mediacentre.epo.org/razuna/assets/1/48E87A7B232941C28C61EBF14484744C/img/14A1BA5
https://mediacentre epo org/razuna/assets/1/48E87A7B232941C28C61EBF14484744C/img/14A1BA5
57F4F47A0A048D96B0065E655/Spain_Top_applicants_2018.jpg
Inventor is the main protagonist of the
invention, and deserves most of the merit of
th invention.
the i ti But
B t the
th patent
t tddrafter
ft isi crucial
i l
to protect it. Lawyers play an important role at
litigation
g and transfer.
Official titles
ES: agente de la
propiedad industrial
EP: European
patent attorney
US: p
patent agent
g &
patent attorney
GB: patent attorney
DE: Patentanwalt

How to make money from private inventors or
academic
d i researchers
h
At universities and
public research center,
the g
goal is to p
protect the
technology for
transferingg it ((where
size does not matter)

Las patentes y el know-how son los mejores instrumentos
para la
l transferencia
t f i de
d tecnología
t l í
mediante licencia
o venta directa ...
... o mediante
intercambio de
licencias Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
351
Smith & Parr
Based on:
- income approach
(e.g. "the 25% rule")
- cost approach
- market approach
Posibles criterios de valoración del interés
comercial
i l de
d una invención
i ió
DISPONIBILIDAD Y PROTECCIÓN
1. Grado de desarrollo de la invención
2. Calidad de la protección de la propiedad industrial-intelectual
3. Probabilidad y coste de industrialización / comercialización
POTENCIAL INNOVADOR
4. Grado de innovación respecto a lo conocido
5. Ventajas: funcionalidad, disponibilidad, complejidad, inversión
6. Base industrial / Contactos existentes en el tejido industrial
POTENCIAL DE MERCADO
7. Aplicabilidad y normativa reguladora
8. Oportunidades y tamaño de mercados
9. Ausencia de barreras normativas y de propiedad industrial-intelectual

University patents can be either licenced or sold
Example of licenced patent from UB
Example of sold patent from UB

UB merits will always be recognized through the identity of inventors
PROGRAM


Patent certificates (one page)
Patent documents: applications &

[granted] patents (most of them are free-
of-charge
g from Espacenet, USPTO...))
Scientific publications (often expensive and/or difficult to access; not always

i E
in English
li h or ttranslated
l t d iinto
t EEnglish)
li h)
All scientists
i i and
d engineers
i
should use patent
d
documents t as an
information source.
- Patent documents are the

largest source of technical (not
scientific) information.
- In 70-85% of the cases they contain information that will

never be published elsewhere.
- In most cases they are the first document where an
information is published.
The closest 'simultaneous' document to the author's PhD thesis was
patent application EP 0000478 A1 from Henkel
Reaction products of
thiazoles with crosslinked
chloromethyl polystyrene
Claim 1 of EP 478 A1 (Henkel, 1979) acyloins include benzoins
358 Pascual Segura

Pascual - Centre
Segura de Patents
- Centre de ladeUniversitat
de Patents de Barcelona
la Universitat de Barcelona
INID Codes
(I t
(Internationally
ti ll agreed
d Numbers
N b for
f the
th Identification
Id tifi ti off Data)
D t )
(10s) IDENTIFICATION OF PATENT DOCUMENT (application or patent)
(19) Code of office (ES, US, CN, JP, DE, FR, GB,..) or organization (WO, EP..)
(11) Publication number
(12) Kind-of-document code (A, B patents; U, Y utility models; T translation)
(20 ) APPLICATION DATA

(20s) DATA: (21) A
Application
li ti number;
b (22) A
Application/filing
li ti /fili dated t
(30s) PRIORITY DATA: Priority applns. and dates (oldest no more than 12 months
before appln. date)
((50s)) TECHNICAL INFORMATION: ((51)) IPC;; ((54)) Title;; ((57)) Abstracts
(70s) IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES: (71) Applicants; (72) Inventors;

(73) Proprietors/Assignees; (74) Representative
(80s) EPC/PCT DATA: (81) PCT designated states; (84) EPC designated states;
(86) PCT appl
appl. no
no. & date; (87) PCT pub
pub. no
no. & date; ...
Codes for kinds of p
patent documents (1)
( )
- Assigned to every patent document
- Allow to distinguish
g the different p
publication levels:
Application
Search Report
[Granted] Patent
Patent amended in opposition; after correction of errors, etc.
- Somewhat miscelaneous, but g generally:
y A# = applications;
pp B# = p
patents
- In the EPO:
A1: P
A1 Publication
bli ti off EEuropean application
li ti with
ith European
E S
Search
hRReportt
A2: Publication of European application without European Search
A3: Separate publication of European Search Report
A4: Supplementary European Search Report
B1: [Granted] Patent
B2 P
B2: Patent
t t amended
d d iin opposition
iti

Codes for kinds of p
patent documents (2)
( )
In the Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas (it was
different at the beginning of the Patent Act of 1986)
A1, A2, A3: applications (same as in the EPO)

B1: Patent granted under the general procedure (without subst. exam.)
B2: Patent granted under the (optional) examination procedure
T1: Translation of claims of an EP application (for having a provisional
protection)
T3: Translation of an European Patent (B1)T5: Translation of an EP
patent amended in opposition (B2)
In the USPTO:
A [or none]: Granted patents until March 2001 (only publication)

A: Publication of a Patent Application (since March 2001)
B: [Granted] Patent (since March 2001)

1 of 2
363 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 off 2

1 of 2
365 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2

1 of 2
367 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2

+ Fecha, firma y sello
1 of 2
370 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2
371 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
(also published in Spanish)
1 of 2
372 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2
Meaning of categories A,
A X and Y in all patent search reports
373 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
374 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
1 of 2
375 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2
376 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
1 of 2
377 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
2 of 2
378 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
382 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
384 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
Common Application Format, CAF

2016-02-02
Example of a patent family on food technology
386 (slides made on- Centre
Pascual Segura October 2013)
de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
From independent claims

Comparison between a full paper and a patent document
A typical scientific paper Ap
patent document
- [ Title ] (long and very descriptive) - [Title of invention] (little descriptive)
[ INVENTORS (one or few, all 'real' ones)
[ AUTHORS ((many; y; sometimes some of them
PROPRIETOR (applicant,
( li t patentee,
t t assignee)]
i )]
'fictitious' - what is immoral) ]
-TECHNICAL FIELD (short intro.)
- INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND with many
- BACKGROUND ART: p problem ((if alreadyy
citations to papers (bibliographic review)
known); closest prior art (usually few citations
- RESULTS, describing what has been found, to patents) and its limitations
with tables and figures (present & past tenses) - SUMMARY OF INVENTION: extrapolation
- DISCUSSION, justifying the results by (present) of particular embodiments, providing
theories, modeling, reasoning, etc., support to independent claims; problem &
distinguishing between what is real (present) solution;; industrial application;
pp ; advantages.
g
and what is possible (conditional); comparison - [ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS ]
with other studies; perspectives (future), etc.
- DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS /
- EXPERIMENTAL PART (Materials & EXAMPLES: dependent claims; what has
Methods; Examples): What has been really been really done (past) and/or paper examples
done (past), with full detail to be reproducible. (present); explanation of FIGs, if any.
- REFERENCE LIST - CLAIMS: defining the subject-matter (entities
or activities) whose protection is sought.
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- [ DRAWINGS ] (FIGs., if any)
- ADDITIONAL MATERIAL - SEQUENCE LISTING
ABSTRACT (limited to 150 words in patents)
Content of a patent document - Contenido de un doc. de patente
[ Description ] DESCRIPCIÓN
[Titl off invention]
[Title i ti ] (little
(littl descriptive)
d i ti ) [Título de la invención] (poco descriptivo)
TECHNICAL FIELD (short introducción) SECTOR DE LA TÉCNICA (introducción corta)
BACKGROUND ART: problem (if already ANTECEDENTES DE LA INVENCIÓN: problema
known); closest prior art (usually few (si ya es conocido); estado de la técnica más
citations to patents) and its limitations próximo (gener. pocas citas a patentes) y sus
SUMMARY OF INVENTION: extrapolation limitaciones
(present) of particular embodiments
embodiments, C C Ó DE LA INVENCIÓN:
EXPLICACIÓN CÓ e extrapolación
t apo ac ó
providing support to independent claims; (presente) de realizaciones particulares,
problem & solution; industrial application; proporcionando soporte a las reivindicaciones
advantages etc
advantages, etc. p
independendientes; problema y solución;
p
[ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS ] aplicación industrial; ventajas; etc.
DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS / [ BREVE DESCRIPCIÓN DE LOS DIBUJOS ]
EXAMPLES: dependent claims; what has REALIZACIONES PREFERENTES / EJEMPLOS:
been really done (past) and/or paper reivs. dependientes; lo que realmente se ha hecho
examples (present); explanation of Figs. (pasado) y/o ejemplos sobre el papel (present);
explicación de las Figs.
CLAIMS
[numbered] Defining the subject-matter REIVINDICACIONES
(entities/products, activities/processes) [numeradas] Definen la materia u objeto
whose protection is sought (entidades/productos, actividades/procedimientos)
que se quiere proteger
ABSTRACT
RESUMEN
[ DRAWINGS ] (Figs.,
(Figs if any) [ DIBUJOS ] (Figs.,
(Figs si hay)
SEQUENCE LISTING (computer file; if any) LISTADO DE SECUENCIAS (fichero ordenador)
EXERCISE: Order and contents of the different
sections of a patent document
The invention relates to a pasta of the "spaghetti" type having a particular
p , with good
shape, g taste and short cooking g time. The nine p
paragraphs
g p below
correspond to a hypothetical patent document (which is not necessarily
complete and has no abstracts), but they are placed in a random order. Place
the paragraphs in the right order,
order under the appropriate one of the seven CAF
section headings (some section will include more than one paragraph).
- TITLE OF INVENTION
- TECHNICAL FIELD
- BACKGROUND ART
- SUMMARY OF INVENTION
- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
- DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS
- CLAIMS
(a) Some advantages of the product of the present invention, noted following the performance of tests,
are the following: cooking time of approximately two minutes using the traditional method (boiling
water) that is to say reduced by over 65% with respect to the time needed to cook solid cross-section
water),
spaghetti of the same diameter (cooking time 6-7 minutes); and possibility of reducing said cooking time
even further to approximately one minute using special automatic cooking machines for the cooking of
pasta, in which the water reaches a temperature
p p of 140 C and a p
pressure of 10 atm.
(b) Various types of spaghetti with longitudinal grooves are already known from the state of the art which
allow the cooking process to be effected in less time than that necessary for the same process using
similar hollow cylindrical products (bucatini) or solid products. However, said products are not entirely
without disadvantages, regarding above all the homogeneity of cooking.
(c) The present invention relates to the provision of an alimentary pasta of the spaghetti type provided
with longitudinal grooves shaped in such a way as to create a product formed with a central nucleus and
three longitudinal angularly equidistant lobes, in which the balance between the forms and dimensions
of the structural components is such as to permit notable advantages, both from a production point of
view,, and from the point
p of view of use during
g and after cooking,
g, compared
p with the traditional p
products
existing on the market, and furthermore such as to avoid the problems mentioned above with reference
to similar grooved products known from the state of the art.
(d) In fact
fact, spaghetti have been produced having a star-shaped
star shaped cross
cross-section
section, in which,
which when cooked
cooked,
an excessive softening of the parts forming the points is seen relative to the central core, whereas in
other more successful types, in which a structure having three grooves placed at 120 degrees to each
other has been adopted, giving the spaghetti a clover-shaped cross-section, the spaghetti have tended
to tangle together during cooking, with a consequent “sticking”, so that, at the end of the cooking time,
they are undercooked at the center and overcooked on the outside.
(e) The present invention relates to the field of long alimentary pasta, in particular of the spaghetti type.

(f) An alimentary pasta of the “spaghetti” type comprising a solid central core of circular cross-section
integral with three parallel longitudinal lobes spaced at angles of 120 from one another and separated
by grooves,
grooves the cross-section of each of the lobes having an outline with a convex head portion which
is in the form of a circular arc with a radius of curvature (R1) substantially equal to that of conventional
solid spaghetti of the same diameter and which is joined at its ends to the first ends of substantially
semicircular convex lateral p portions which have a much smaller radius of curvature ((R2)) than ((R1))
and of which the second ends are joined by concave curved portions with a small radius of curvature
(R3) to the first ends of respective concave stem portions which are in the form of a circular arc with a
radius of curvature (R4) greater than (R2) but smaller than (R1) and which are joined at their second
endsd tto the
th respective
ti second d ends
d off stem
t portions
ti off adjacent
dj t llobes.
b
(g) As can be seen from the above figures, the spaghetti according to the invention comprises a solid
central core 11, of a substantially circular cross-section
cross-section, forming a single piece with three parallel
longitudinal lobes, generically indicated by numeral 2, said lobes being spaced 120 from each other
and separated by grooves 3. The shape of the lobes 2 and of the corresponding grooves 3 has been
the object
j of intense study,
y in order to ggive the p
product of the invention the advantages
g described
above as compared with the traditional products of the same type and with similar known grooved
products.
(h) Th
The presentt invention
i ti iis ffurther
th ill
illustrated
t t d with
ith reference
f tto one off itits preferred
f d embodiments
b di t
shown in the accompanying drawings, in which:
- FIG. 1 is a perspective view, on enlarged scale, of an alimentary pasta of the spaghetti type
according to the invention
invention.
- FIG. 2 is a cross-section view, on a still more enlarged scale, of the product according to FIG. 1.
((i)) Alimentaryy pasta

p of short cooking
g time.

Content of a patent document - Contenido de un doc. de patente
[ Description ] DESCRIPCIÓN
[Titl off invention]
[Title i ti ] (little
(littl descriptive)
d i ti ) [Título de la invención] (poco descriptivo)
TECHNICAL FIELD (short introducción) SECTOR DE LA TÉCNICA (introducción corta)
BACKGROUND ART: problem (if already ANTECEDENTES DE LA INVENCIÓN: problema
known); closest prior art (usually few (si ya es conocido); estado de la técnica más
citations to patents) and its limitations próximo (gener. pocas citas a patentes) y sus
SUMMARY OF INVENTION: extrapolation limitaciones
(present) of particular embodiments
embodiments, C C Ó DE LA INVENCIÓN:
EXPLICACIÓN CÓ e extrapolación
t apo ac ó
providing support to independent claims; (presente) de realizaciones particulares,
problem & solution; industrial application; proporcionando soporte a las reivindicaciones
advantages etc
advantages, etc. p
independendientes; problema y solución;
p
[ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS ] aplicación industrial; ventajas; etc.
DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS / [ BREVE DESCRIPCIÓN DE LOS DIBUJOS ]
EXAMPLES: dependent claims; what has REALIZACIONES PREFERENTES / EJEMPLOS:
been really done (past) and/or paper reivs. dependientes; lo que realmente se ha hecho
examples (present); explanation of Figs. (pasado) y/o ejemplos sobre el papel (present);
explicación de las Figs.
CLAIMS
[numbered] Defining the subject-matter REIVINDICACIONES
(entities/products, activities/processes) [numeradas] Definen la materia u objeto
whose protection is sought (entidades/productos, actividades/procedimientos)
que se quiere proteger
ABSTRACT
RESUMEN
[ DRAWINGS ] (Figs.,
(Figs if any) [ DIBUJOS ] (Figs.,
(Figs si hay)
SEQUENCE LISTING (computer file; if any) LISTADO DE SECUENCIAS (fichero ordenador)
REPEATED
A patent
p
family
409 Pascual
Pascual
Segura
Segura
- Centre
- Centre
de Patents
de Patents
de ladeUniversitat
la Universitat
de Barcelona
de Barcelona
May 2016
2015-11-11
PROGRAM
- Patent
P t t iinformation
f ti retrieval
ti l

Why use patent information?

wipo_pub_l434_03.pdf (p. 7)
Strategies to be used for searching patent information

Avoiding infringement: search + legal status + claim appraisal

Commercial
patent info.
info
sources

The UB Patent Center was CAS & STN Spanish representative in the period 1995-2008

SciFinder: user-friendly access to CAS databases
SciFinder
CAS REGISTRYSM
CA Family*
Family
CASREACT®
CAS CHEMCATS®
Scientists
CHEMLIST®
CIN®
MARPAT®
ToxcenterSM
*The CA Family is comprised of CA, CAplus and CAOLD

f
free substitution
b tit ti

Searching biosequencs
Free-of-charge tools:
EBI (European Bioinformatics Institute)

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/
NCBI (National Centre for Biotechnology Information)

p g
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
WU-BLAST (Washington University)

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/wublast/
Commercial tools:
STN - CA
GenomeQuest (Fragment Search/GenePast)

A machine cannot be
p
inventor in the European
patent system (according
to a 2020 decision of the
EPO Boards of Appeal)

WIPO Magazine, Dec. 2019, pp. 8-13

Two free-of-charge patent databases
Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/)
(https://worldwide espacenet com/) offered by the EPO
EPO, whose
webpage is full of training materials on patent information (http://www.epo.org/
searching-for-patents.html).
It covers > 120 million docs. from > 100 offices (from JPO since 1976, more limited
from SIPO and KIPO; guidance on Asian patent information in the EPO webpage).
Full-text searching in English
It incorporates the Inpadoc patent family database, and every of its records has
li k to
links t documents
d t members
b off th
the same ffamily,
il what
h t makes
k it the
th first
fi t choice
h i forf
downloading documents.
It allows keyword searching with many operators
operators, classification searching based on
IPC and CPC, and citation searching enhanced with the Common Citation
Document service (citations from applications and search reports of the patent
family).
family)
Concerning legal information, it provides links to the European Patent Register
and to the registers of other offices, plus a Global Dossier service that includes
the IP5 Offices, the PCT and the Canadian Office.
Google Patents (see later)

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (starts at Smart search)

Two free-of-charge patent databases
Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/)
(https://worldwide espacenet com/) offered by the EPO
EPO, whose
webpage is full of training materials on patent information (http://www.epo.org/
searching-for-patents.html).
It covers > 120 million docs. from > 100 offices (from JPO since 1976, more limited
from SIPO and KIPO; guidance on Asian patent information in the EPO webpage).
Full-text searching in English
It incorporates the Inpadoc patent family database, and every of its records has
li k to
links t documents
d t members
b off th
the same ffamily,
il what
h t makes
k it the
th first
fi t choice
h i forf
downloading documents.
It allows keyword searching with many operators
operators, classification searching based on
IPC and CPC, and citation searching enhanced with the Common Citation
Document service (citations from applications and search reports of the patent
family).
family)
Concerning legal information, it provides links to the European Patent Register
and to the registers of other offices, plus a Global Dossier service that includes
the IP5 Offices, the PCT and the Canadian Office.
Google Patents (see later)

Preliminary searches in Espacenet & Google Patents
Half
438page advertisements on newspapers Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Patent information
resources at the EPO
web page: www.epo.org

Patent information
resources at the EPO
web page: www.epo.org

International Patent Classification (example in Spanish)

International Patent Classification (example in English)
IPC Guide 2014 downloadable from:

http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/classifications/ipc/en/guide/guide_ipc.pdf
Cooperative Patent Classification (since 2013)

Ejemplos de búsquedas de patentes por temas

Espacenet: Searching by Classification Search

Refining a search in Worldwide database

Refining a search in Worldwide EN database

Full text searches are useful for 'finding a needle in a haystack'.
But most of the time the outcome is 'information noise'
This document cites some prior art that might be

459
relevant. But the invention itself is not relevant
March 2016

March 2016

Finding CPC codes from relevant known patent documents

highly specific!

Finding CPC codes searching from technical terminology
El t i toothbrush
Electric t thb h
An electric toothbrush is a toothbrush that makes rapid automatic
bristle motions, either back-and-forthf oscillation or rotation-oscillation
(where the brush head alternates clockwise and counterclockwise
rotation), in order to clean teeth. Motions at sonic speeds or below are
made by a motor.
........
The first
f electric toothbrush was produced by the Electro Massage Tooth
Brush Company in the U.S.A. in 1927. In Switzerland in 1954 Dr. Philippe
Guy Woog invented the Broxodent.
Broxodent Woog
Woog's s electric toothbrushes were
originally manufactured in Switzerland (later in France) for Broxo S.A.
............
Electric brushes can be classified f into two categories according to the
type of action that they employ: vibration or rotation-oscillation. When
using vibrating toothbrush
toothbrush, a brushing technique similar to that used with a
manual toothbrush is recommended, whereas with rotating-oscillating
brushes the recommended cleaning technique is to simply move the brush
slowly from tooth to tooth. [Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2018]
Classification search in Espacenet






in Advanced
Search
template

with
patents
in Spain
... that
still may
be in
force
474
ca. 100 documents is a reasonable

ca
number for browsing titles & abstracts

Espacenet: Searching by Classification combination sets
March 2016
Espacenet & Google Patents together:
Searching by combining CPC codes
Half
477page advertisements on newspapers Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
The European Search
S Report
mentions five documents to be
relevant when taken alone
( "X" category), relevant to Claim 1.
This claim is considered not novel
in the Written Opinion

A preliminary search in two free-of-charge
databases: Espacenet and Google Patents
Invention: Drinks can with two separated compartments
Concept 1: can/container for drinks/beverages

C
Concept
t22: (t i ll ) made
(typically) d off aluminium
l i i
Concept 3: opened by tearing a ring/tap
Concept 4: two compartments
two partitions
divisions, divided ... divi*

Classification search

There is an error in this
slide:
Truncation "divi*" (wildcard
for a string of any length)
should
h ld be b used d instead
i t d off
"divi?" (wildcard for zero or
one character)

Getting some very relevant documents in order to
find out the most appropriate CDC codes

Found in European Search
Report of EP 1 350 729 A
(David Quispe)
As a result of this Classification
Search we conclude that the
Search,
following two CPC codes may be
relevant:
B65D 17/165 for containers opened
by tearing
B65D 25/04 for containers in internal
partitions
Now we can used them in

Espacenet in Google Patents and in
Espacenet,
other patent databases

https://www.google.es/advanced_patent_search?
((David Quispe)
Q p )

Searching in the automatic
translation into English

Prior art
documents are
those published
before a given
priority date
((before 2003 in this
case)

p
(David Quispe)
((David Quispe)
p )

501
(David Quispe)
Espacenet
record of the
David Quispe
patent family
Google Patents and Espacenet supplement each other:
Google Patents record of DE 3618836 A1 (1 of 2)

Google Patents record of DE 3618836 A1 (2 of 2)
already found
Citation searching: cited & citing

Citation searching: cited & citing
Gess who hasn't Patent Office
carried out a
preliminary search
in patent databases
Search in patent databases

using classification codes
codes...
Don't be a troglodyte!
[or a simple Google searcher]
Example: Finding patents for "probiotic strains" containing
bacteria lactobacillus Plantarum

Example: Finding patents for "probiotic strains" containing
bacteria lactobacillus Plantarum

Retrieving CPC codes for "probiotic strains"
containing bacteria lactobacillus Plantarum

Refining the search to "lactobacillus plantarum"

Browsing titles (194) in compact view

La Vanguardia 2013-10-06,
Suplemento Dinero p.16

no CPC
Comparing with keyword searching

without classification searching Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
528
Using CPC -> 194 results
Non usingg CPC -> 1245 results. The extra results ((1041, 84% of 1245)) p
probably
y are
not relevant!
Possibility of
simultaneously
searching in Google
Scholar

continúa...
Un ITP de la OEPM es una opción buena (y sumamente

532 Pascual Segura
Pascual - Centre
Segura de Patents
- Centre de ladeUniversitat
de Patents de Barcelona
la Universitat de Barcelona
barata) para obtener una búsqueda profesional y comentada
2/3

PROGRAM

IP litigation is very expensive, particularly
in US (where there is extensive
'di
'discovery')') and
d before
b f the
th GB High
Hi h Court
C t

- Un patente [concedida] es un título legal indivisible, con uno
o más titulares (propietarios), que se asocia a un documento
público (el fascículo de patente concedida),
concedida) que tiene una o
más reivs. Si está en vigor en un determinado país, cada una
de sus reivs. confiere ciertos derechos para excluir la
Reiv. 1 explotación de terceros no autorizados
autorizados.
Reiv. 2 - Además de sobre otras cuestiones (legitimación, pruebas,

daños y perjuicios,
perjuicios etc.),
etc ) un juez/tribunal decide sobre la
validez de las reivs. que se alega que se han infringido
(decisión sobre validez).
... ?
- Entonces, el juez/tribunal decide sobre si el acto de
explotación que se alega que ha realizado el tercero infringe
realización alguno de los derechos conferidos por las reivs
reivs. válidas
cuestionada (decisión sobre infracción). Esto implica dos juicios: (i) decidir
(entidad, sobre si el acto de explotación se ha realizado; y (ii) decidir
actividad) si la realización cuestionada (i.e.
(i e la entidad o actividad
implicada en la acto de explotación) cae dentro del alcance de
? al menos una reiv. válida.
Acto de
explotación del - Cuando el juez/tribunal no tiene suficientes conocimientos
tercero no técnicos, generalmente se proporcionan peritos (por las partes o
autorizado (Arts
(Arts. el tribunal) para dar opiniones sobre hechos técnicos (no
sobre derechos sobre cuestiones de derecho).
concedidos)
Decisión sobre infracción de una reiv.
El juez/tribunal decidirá que una reiv
reiv. se ha infringido por un acto
de explotación asociado a una realización cuestionada sólo si,
en su opinión, se ha probado suficientemente que se dan
Reiv. 1 simultáneamente las dos condiciones siguientes:
Reiv. 2 - La realización cuestionada cae dentro del alcance de la

reiv ...
reiv.
(1º) interpretando la reiv. de forma literal (infracción literal); o,
... ? g
en caso negativo ((i.e. cuando no hay y infracción literal)...
)
(2º) interpretando la reiv. mediante la doctrina de los
equivalentes (infracción por equivalencia)
realización
cuestionada - Se ha realizado un acto de explotación:
(entidad,
bien como infracción directa (actos definidos en Art. 59 LP para
actividad)
España),
? bien como infracción indirecta (actos definidos en Art. 60 LP en
Acto de ES para infracción
i f ió por contribución
t ib ió o infracción
i f ió por iinducción)
d ió )
explotación del
tercero no sin que concurra ninguna de las excepciones a la infracción
autorizado (Arts
(Arts. (Arts 61
(Arts. 61-63
63 LP en ES)
sobre derechos Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
537
concedidos)
Tipos de infracción
En España (y la mayoría de países europeos):

- Infracción directa,
directa por la realización de alguno de los actos
prohibidos del tipo de los que en ES vienen definidos en Art. 50 LP1986 y
Art. 59 LP2015.
- Infracción indirecta, por la realización de alguno de los actos
prohibidos del tipo de los que en ES vienen definidos en Art. 51 LP1986 y
A t 60 LP2015
Art. LP2015.
En US (35 USC 271):

- Direct Infringement
- Indirect Infringement
- Contributory
- Active Inducement
Algunas cuestiones de infracción en US son especialmente

complejas
Prohibición de explotación directa de la invención
(
(cont)
t). Art. 59 LP cont. (añadido por Ley 10/2002, que transpuso
Directiva 98/44/EC de Biotecnología):
2. Cuando la patente tenga por objeto una materia biológica que, por el hecho de
la invención, posea propiedades determinadas, los derechos conferidos por la
patente se extenderán a cualquier materia biológica obtenida a partir de la
materia biológica patentada por reproducción o multiplicación, en forma
idéntica o diferenciada, y que posea esas mismas propiedades.
3. Cuando la patente tenga por objeto un procedimiento que permita producir
una materia biológica que, por el hecho de la invención, posea propiedades
determinadas, los derechos conferidos por la patente se extenderán a la materia
biológica directamente obtenida por el procedimiento patentado y a cualquier
otra materia biológica obtenida a partir de ella por reproducción o multiplicación, en
forma idéntica o diferenciada
diferenciada, y que posea esas mismas propiedades
propiedades.
4. Cuando la patente tenga por objeto un producto que contenga información
genética o que consista en información genética
genética, los derechos conferidos
por la patente se extenderán, sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el apartado 4 del
artículo 5, a toda materia a la que se incorpore el producto y en la que se
genética."
contenga y ejerza su función la información genética
Infringement cases related to Monsanto European Patent
EP 546.090 B2
Monsanto has a patent to the gene sequence that conferred to a plant
resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (Round up)
Claim 1 was to a isolated DNA sequence encoding a Class II EPSPS

enzyme.
Cargill in GB imported soymeal from genetically modified soya beans

into GB
GB. Cases in GB
GB, ES (Sestroris) and in NL (Cefetra)
(Cefetra).
The judge found as a fact that the gene sequence was present in the
allegedly infringing material.
Case example of differences in implementation and interpretation of

directive in different countries.

Infringement cases related to Monsanto EP (cont.)
Clone genes
from bacteria and
Glyphosate-resistant
Glyphosate resistant soy plants
isolate DNA
bacteria
“encoding” herbicide
Herbicide Resistant
Enzyme
Field with herbicide

resistant plants
Soy beans Soy meal

Infringement cases related to Monsanto EP (cont.)
Art. 59.4 LP2015, Art. 9 Dir. 98/44/CE: "Cuando la patente tenga por objeto
un producto que contenga información genética o que consista en
información genética
genética, los derechos conferidos por la patente se extenderán
extenderán,
sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el apartado 4 del artículo 5 a toda materia a la
que se incorpore
q p el p
producto y en la q
que se contenga
g y ejerza
j su función la
información genética".
Soymeal is highly processed and contains no viable cells. In these
circumstances the inserted gene even if present, is not performing its function
because in order to perform its function it would need to be transcribed into
mRNA and then translated into protein
protein, and this can only be performed in
viable cells.
If the directive applies in this situation, there would be arguably be no

infringement due to art 9.  case in Spain (last decision March 2009).
This situation may have been avoided by including a claim to soymeal to the
claim set!!

Caso Monsanto en ES (SAP Mad-28 2009-03-10 Monsanto vs. Sesostris
FD1: ... "el Juzgado de lo Mercantil [JM Mad-6], tras tramitar el correspondiente
proceso, consideró que la referida conducta de la demandada no entrañaba
infracción de la citada patente [reiv. 1 de ES 2 089 232 T5], entre otras razones por
no haber acreditado la parte demandante que se cumpliese en la harina la función
de la secuencia genética contenida en la primera reivindicación de la patente, que
es codificar una enzima qque favorezca la tolerancia al herbicida denominado g glifosato,
de manera que pueda ser usado en las plantas que la contengan sin que resulten
dañadas.
FD5: ... "La
La harina de soja puede ser una materia a la que se haya incorporado el
producto patentado y que puede contener la información genética patentada (una
secuencia de DNA aislada que contiene la codificación de una determinada enzima),
pero sería preciso q que
e además ésta ejerciese en ella la ffunción
nción biológica específica q
que
e
justificó la obtención de la patente de invención (que la enzima sea capaz de reaccionar
con anticuerpos contra otra enzima, lo que haría que pudiera producirse una planta
t l
tolerante
t all herbicida
h bi id glifosato).
lif t ) La
L relevancia
l i de
d que se ejerza
j tal
t l función
f ió biológica
bi ló i
no es un requisito que pueda ser minusvalorado, ni suavizado por vía
interpretativa. Al contrario, se trata de un factor fundamental, exigido literalmente
en ell nºº 4 d
dell artículo
tí l 50 de d la
l LP."
LP "
FALLO: Desestimamos el recurso de apelación interpuesto por la representación
de MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC contra la SJM Mad Mad-6
6 2007-07-27.
2007 07 27.

Art. 60 LP2015 [Prohibición de explotación
i di
indirecta
t de
d lla invención
i ió [cf.
[ f Art.
A t 30 CPC1975]
1. La patente confiere igualmente a su titular el derecho a impedir

1
que sin su consentimiento cualquier tercero entregue u ofrezca
entregar medios para la puesta en práctica de la invención
patentada relativos a un elemento esencial de la misma a
personas no habilitadas para explotarla, cuando el tercero sabe o las
circunstancias hacen evidente que tales medios son aptos para la
puesta en práctica de la invención y están destinados a ella
(
(contributory
t ib t infringement).
i fi t)
2. Lo dispuesto en el apartado anterior no es aplicable cuando los

2
medios a que el mismo se refiere sean productos que se encuentren
corrientemente en el comercio,, a no ser que
q el tercero incite a la
persona a la que realiza la entrega a cometer actos prohibidos en el
artículo anterior (active inducement to infringement).

Art. 26 UPCA. Right to prevent the indirect use [indirect
exploitation]
l it ti ] off the
th invention
i ti
(1) A patent shall confer on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party
not having the proprietor's consent from supplying or offering to supply,
within the territory of the Contracting Member States in which that patent
has effect, any person other than a party entitled to exploit the patented
invention, with means, relating to an essential element of that
invention for putting it into effect therein
invention, therein, when the third party knows
knows,
or should have known, that those means are suitable and intended for
putting that invention into effect.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the means are staple commercial
products except where the third party induces the person supplied to
products,
perform any of the acts prohibited by Art. 25.
(3) Persons performing the acts referred to in Art. 27(a) to (e) shall not
be considered to be parties entitled to exploit the invention within the
meaning of paragraph 1
1.
UPCA 2013
ES 286.841 U (Vileda).
Reiv. 1: "Dispositivo
de acoplamiento de
un mango a un útil de
limpieza,
caracterizado porque
está constituido por
una pieza hembra
dotada de dos faldas
cilíndricas
concéntricas,, unida
al mango de
sustentación y
accionamiento
manual, y una pieza
macho dotada de una
falda cilíndrica,
cilíndrica unida
al soporte para el útil
y ensamblable entre
l dos
las d faldas
f ld ded la
l
pieza anterior, ."
Comercializado por Vileda Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

546
como "sistema click-clack"
Dos pasos en el análisis del alcance de la protección
mediante interpretación de las reivindicaciones
A efectos de infracción está ampliamente aceptada la regla de la
simultaneidad de todos los elementos [all elements rule], según la cual
la realización (producto/procedimiento) cuestionada está comprendida
dentro del alcance de la protección de una reivindicación si, y sólo si, la
realización cuestionada responde (literalmente o por equivalencia) a la
definición de todas las características técnicas de la reivindicación.
reivindicación
El análisis de infracción se realiza en dos etapas:
- Primero se analiza la infracción mediante una intepretación literal o por
identidad de la reivindicación.
- En el caso de que se concluya que no hay infracción literal, se debe

considerar la posible infracción mediante una interpretación de la
reivindicación por equivalencia o según la doctrina (jurisprudencial) de
los equivalentes.

¿Qué es interpretar literalmente la reivindicación?
La interpretación literal de las características técnicas de las
reivindicaciones
i i di i requiere
i un análisis
áli i sobre
b lo l que ell expertot en la
l
materia habría entendido por sus términos en la fecha de
solicitud efectiva, a la vista de la descripción y los dibujos.
El experto en la materia interpretará un término usado en la
reivindicación, no según el sentido filológico o semántico de la
palabra, sino de la manera que sea habitual en el sector de la
técnica de que se trate (por su significado técnico habitual).
A no ser que en la propia patente se defina un significado particular
para dicho término: la descripción puede hacer de "diccionario".
Se acepta que los términos generales o funcionales en las
reivindicaciones ("excipientes", "medios elásticos", "medios de
refuerzo",
f " etc.)
t ) pueden
d comprender d variantes,
i t cambio
bi de
d
materiales u otras realizaciones desarrolladas después de la fecha
de prioridad.

Infracción por equivalencia
Reivindicación
= realización cuestionada
generalización obvia de la
reivindicación independiente
Interpretación
p zona de
literal
Interpretación por
equivalencia equivalencia
q

Una definición de infracción por equivalencia de la
Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona, Sección 15ª
SAP Bcn-15 17.01.2008, (Labs. Cinfa et al. vs Eli Lilly), citada en Ignacio
Sancho, "Interpretación
p de las reivindicaciones de una patentep en
supuestos de infracción", XXIII Jornadas GE AIPPI 2008, nº 40, p.71-80
U a so
Una solución
uc ó téc
técnica
ca es equ
equivalente
a e te cua
cuando,
do, conteniendo
co te e do a algún
gú
elemento que no se encuentra literalmente comprendido dentro de
los elementos especificados en una reivindicación, en la fecha en la
que se concibe resulta directamente deducible por el experto en la
materia, a la vista de los descrito en toda la patente y de su
conocimiento
i i t generall común, ú como alternativa
lt ti obvia
b i para obtener
bt
un resultado equivalente; pero, aun cuando la variación carezca de
carácter inventivo y sea obvia para el experto medio
medio, no es
equivalente una solución técnica que contiene algún elemento que,
p
dicho experto,, a la vista de sus reivindicaciones,, descripción
p y
dibujos, hubiera considerado que quedó ab initio excluido de la
patente." (se admite una renuncia clara e inequívoca, o sea, un
prosecution history estoppel claro e inequívoco)
Some patent rights
limitations

Art 27 AUPC. Limitations of the effects of a patent
Th rights
The i ht conferred
f dbby a patent
t t shall
h ll nott extend
t d tto any off th
the ffollowing:
ll i
(a) acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes
(b) acts done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the
patented invention;
(c) the use of biological material for the purpose of breeding, or discovering and
developing other plant varieties;
(d) the acts allowed pursuant to Article 13(6) of Directive 2001/82/EC [veterinary
medicinal
di i l products]
d t ] or Article
A ti l 10(6) off Directive
Di ti 2001/83/EC [medicinal
[ di i l products
d t
for human use] in respect of any patent covering the product within the
meaning of either of those Directives;
(e) the extemporaneous preparation by a pharmacy, for individual cases, of a

medicine in accordance with a medical p
prescription
p or acts concerning
g the medicine
so prepared;
(f) the use of the patented invention on board vessels

vessels... (g)
(g), (h)
(h), (i)
(i), (j)
(j), (k) and (l)
(l).

AUPC 2013, not yet in force
Art. 28 AUPC. Right based on prior use of the invention
Any person, who, if a national patent had been granted in respect of an invention,
would have had, in a Contracting Member State, a right based on prior use of that
invention or a right of personal possession of that invention
invention, shall enjoy, in that
Contracting Member State, the same rights in respect of a patent for the same
invention.
Art. 29 AUPC. Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a

European patent
The rights conferred by a European patent shall not extend to acts concerning a
product covered by that patent after that product has been placed on the
market in the Union byby, or with the consent of,
of the patent proprietor,
proprietor unless there
are legitimate grounds for the patent proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of
the product.
Art. 30 AUPC. Effects of supplementary protection

ce t cates
certificates
A supplementary protection certificate shall confer the same rights as conferred by
the patent and shall be subject to the same limitations and the same
obligations
obligations.
AUPC 2013, not yet in force
Acciones judiciales en materia de patentes
de tipo civil (según la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil

Civil, LEC)
LEC),
ante los Juzgados de lo Mercantil (1ª instancia) y
las Secciones de lo Mercantil (si las hay) de las Audiencias
Provinciales (2ª instancia),
apelables en casación ante la Sala 1ª del Tribunal

Supremo
Demanda ppor infracción

Demanda por nulidad
Solicitud declaratoria de no infracción
Indemnización por daños y perjuicios (damages)

Acciones jjudiciales por
p infracción de patentes
p (cont.)
( )
Desde 1992
1992, frecuentemente se acompañan de una o varias de las
siguientes acciones o pretensiones:
- diligencias de comprobación (Arts. 129-132 LP)
- solicitud
li it d de
d medidas
did cautelares
t l (A t 133-139
(Arts. 133 139 LP,
LP algo
l modificados
difi d
por la LEC 1/2001)
- inversión de la carga de la prueba (Art. 61.2 LP), limitada a

reivindicaciones de procedimiento de preparación de producto nuevo
(patente española equivalente a la patente de producto químico-
farmacéutico en el extranjero)

... pero en materia de pleitos de patentes
¡EL TAMAÑO IMPORTA MUCHO!
U entidad
Una tid d pequeñañ (individuo,
(i di id PYME,
PYME
universidad...), si va sola, difícilmente
podrá pleitear
p p con una empresa
p grande
g
El Juez de lo
Mercantil
(1ª instancia) y la
Audiencia
Provincial
(2ª instancia)
intentarán darle la
razón al que la
tiene, haciendo
justicia
justicia...
Los que intervienen en un litigio o acción judicial
(l
(lawsuit)
it)
- Jueces y magistrados (en tribunales unipersonales o colegiados),

asistidos por el Secretario Judicial y los Oficiales
- Abogados
- Procuradores (el procurador es el representante habilitado y

autorizado, que sigue el proceso, transmite documentos y
comunicaciones, sigue instrucciones, etc)
- Las
L partes
t (parties):
( ti ) lal actora
t ( l i tiff) y la
(plaintiff) l ddemandada
d d (defendant)
(d f d t)
- Testigos (witness)
- Peritos ((expert
p witness))
Ejemplo de sala de vistas (relativamente pequeña) de un Juzgado Mercantil
público, peritos que ya han

declarado, testigos, etc
el que está
declarando
abogados de
la parte abogados de
demandada la parte
demandante
Juez y secretario (que no

salen en la grabación)
Principio de justicia rogada y carga de la prueba
Principio de justicia rogada: Los tribunales civiles decidirán los asuntos
en virtud de las aportaciones de hechos, pruebas y pretensiones de las
partes excepto cuando la ley disponga otra cosa en casos especiales
partes, especiales.
Carga de la prueba: Corresponde al actor y al demandado
reconviniente la carga de probar la certeza de los hechos de los que
ordinariamente se desprenda, según las normas jurídicas a ellos
aplicables,
p el efecto jjurídico correspondiente
p a las p
pretensiones de la
demanda y de la reconvención.
p
Las normas contenidas en los apartados p
precedentes se aplicarán
p siempre
p
que una disposición legal expresa no distribuya con criterios especiales la
carga de probar los hechos relevantes (p.ej. la inversión de la carga de la
prueba del Art.
Art 61
61.2
2 LP)
LP).
Para la aplicación de lo dispuesto en los apartados anteriores de este

artículo
tí l ell ttribunal
ib ld
deberá
b á ttener presente
t lla di
disponibilidad
ibilid d y ffacilidad
ilid d
probatoria que corresponde a cada una de las partes del litigio (lo que
justifica las diligencias de comprobación de hechos, Arts. 129 129-132
132 LP)

El procedimiento judicial
- Demanda (que puede incluir petición de medidas cautelares)
- Contestación (que puede incluir reconvención pidiendo la nulidad)
- Audiencia previa
- Juicio
- Sentencia (que puede estar precedida por Auto de medidas cautelares).
La Demanda y la Contestación incluyen los dictámenes periciales en que

las partes apoyen sus pretensiones.
Pruebas (evidences) sobre los hechos

- La prueba pericial tendrá como objeto los hechos (¡no el derecho!) que
guarden relación con la tutela judicial que se pretenda obtener en el proceso.
- Están exentos de prueba los hechos sobre los que exista plena
conformidad de las partes.
p
- No será necesario probar los hechos que gocen de notoriedad absoluta y

general.

PROGRAM


Ownership vs. Inventorship
- Patent right belongs to inventor(s) when no labor or contract relationship
exists, and inventor(s) uses his(their) own facilities: Private inventions
(
('backyard inventions'))
- Inventions made as a consequence of a work contract or
employment, and related explicitly or implicitly with the work activity,
belong to the company: Labor inventions. Participation of inventors in
benefits derived from invention exploitation depend from labor laws
laws.
In Spain, academic inventors
have right to participate in
benefits (see Art. 20 Spanish
Patent Act 1986)
Everything should be agreed

upon and well-defined before
filing a patent application, in order
to avoid future conflicts of
ownership
CO-OWNERS vs. CO-INVENTORS vs. CO-AUTHORS
- No invention is patentable if one or more inventors are not
declared.
dec a ed To o be inventor
e o a andd to
o be o
owner
e oof the
e pa
patent
e right
g a are
e twoo
different things. Inventors have the moral right to be mentioned in all
patent documents where their invention is claimed. Owners can be
changed (e.g. by purchase or by assignement).
- It is not necessaryy that coinventors work together
g all the time;;
however some cooperation or conection among them should exist.
Every inventor has contributed at least to the conception of
one claim. Thus, initial inventors in an application may be different
from definitive inventors in the granted patent.
- Inventors are not those who merely follow intructions from real
inventors (e.g. lab assistants), those merely supervising, or those
merely employing or managing.

Who are inventors?
Conception is the key Elements of

to be inventor conception
- Only inventors contribute to - recognizing final

conception results
- Others (extended technical - developing means to

arms)) mayy contribute to reach the result
reduction to practice
These ideas are not always used in the scientific world, where other
criteria are followed to declare co-authors of scientific publications

Inventors are only those who have contributed to
the conception of some claimed subject-matter
subject matter
Those merely using

their hands
A laboratory Sorry, but

prima facie
assistant
i t t they are not
following inventors
Thee boss, or
o
instr ctions or
instructions
the company
doing routine
owner ((a veryy
work
important
person))
1 2 3
4 Inventors should avoid typical

error,, such as the invention
being...
((1)) not new
(2) disclosed before patent filing
(3) a solution more complex that
the problem it intends to solve
(4) not accepted by the market
567 Any will be sold? Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Foolish inventions are very common, specially among the 'backyard
inventions'.. Fortunately most of them are not exploited!
inventions
Priority right in the EPC (Arts. 87-89)
A i l 87
Article 8 EPC
EPC. P
Priority
i i right
i h
(1) Any person who has duly filed,
filed in or for
(a) any State party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Ind. Property or
(b) any Member of the World Trade Organization,
an application for a patent, a utility model or a utility certificate, or his
j y for the p
successor in title, shall enjoy, purpose
p of filing
g a European
p p
patent
application in respect of the same invention, a right of priority during a
period of twelve months from the date of filing of the first application.
(2) Every filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the
national law of the State where it was made or under bilateral or multilateral
agreements, including this Convention,
C shall be recognised as giving rise to a
right of priority.
(3) A regular national filing shall mean any filing that is sufficient to
establish the date on which the application was filed, whatever the
outcome of the application may be be.
What can be patented: Two basic types of
claims,
l i with
ith a sub-type
bt
PRODUCT or ENTITY
- ELECTROMECHANICAL (general)
- CHEMICAL (material; pure or mixed)
- PHARMACEUTICAL (for human or animal therapy)
- FOOD
- MICROBIOLOGICAL (alive and microscopic)
- BIOLOGICAL MATTER (self-replicating; Directive 44/98/EEC)
- GENETIC INFORMATION
PROCESS METHOD or ACTIVITY

PROCESS,
- IN GENERAL: Any set of activities with industrial applicability, sometimes in a
given sequence; including a PROCESS OF USING or USE of a product with a
given purpose (special drafting for 'medical uses')
- IN PARTICULAR: OBTAINING PROCESS of a product, that also protects de
product directly obtained
WORTHY
PATENT
APPLICATION
When looking for a valuable patent protection, the question

Is there anything patentable among these R&D results?"
"Is results? is
WRONG
If the
th results
lt are original,
i i l one can always
l fi d something
find thi patentable;
t t bl b butt
it may be minor and worthless.
S th
See the ffollowing
ll i example:
l
The RIGHT question is: "From this knowledge (R&D results, etc.)
are we able to find out any invention which is worth being
patented?"
t t d?"
Are we able to draft claims which are worth being patented?
(out of inventors/applicants knowledge and our own skills)
Inventors/applicants knowledge Inventions, i.e. claims

- "Positive"
"P iti " experiments
i t (those
(th th
thatt - products/entities,
d t / titi
"work", preferably ordered by their activity)
- processes of making products,
g
- "Negative" experiments
p ((those that "do
- other processes/methods
processes/methods, including
not work". They are not part of the invention,
"uses"
but they may be useful to define limits
(comparative examples) and/or as inventive
step arguments
? claims which are:
... technical solutions to technical
- Technical ideas/drawings related to de problems (have technical character
invention and industrial applicability)
- Business considerations (PATENTS ... patentable (are novel, involve
ARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY!), often inventive step, are supported by the
provide
id ffrom non-inventors
i t ((e.g. managers d
description,
i ti etc.)
t )
or marketing people)
... enforceable before courts (to deter
- Known p
prior art imitation or to p
prosecute infringers),
g ), and
- Etc. ... protecting against imitation of
some profitable activity (to provide a
competitive advantage)
572 This is the question! Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
EPC Article 52: Patentable inventions
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all
gy p
fields of technology, provided that they
y are new, involve an
inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions
within the meaning of paragraph 1:
((a)) discoveries,, scientific theories and mathematical methods;;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts,
playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter

or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a
European patent application or European patent relates to such
subject-matter
j or activities as such.

EPC Article 54: Novelty
1) An invention shall be considered to be new [novel] if it does not
form part of the state of the art [prior art].
(2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made
available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by
use, or in any other way, before the [effective] date of filing of the
European patent application.
(3) Additionally, the content of European patent applications as

filed, the dates of filing of which are prior to the date referred to in
paragraph h 2 and
d which
hi h were published
bli h d on or after
ft th
thatt date,
d t shall
h ll
be considered as comprised in the state of the art.
("
("noveltylt antecedent
t d t according
di tto A
Art.
t 54
54.3
3 EPC = Art.
At 6 6.3
3 LP")
(4) & (5) ->

> exceptions of first and subsequent medical indications
EPC Article 56: Inventive step
An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if,
having g regard
g to the state of the art,, it is not obvious to a
person skilled in the art. If the state of the art also includes
documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3 [patent
applications filed before and published after the effective
filing date], these documents shall not be considered in
deciding whether there has been an inventive step. step

EPC Article 57. Industrial application
An iinvention
A ti shall
h ll be
b considered
id d as susceptible
tibl off iindustrial
d ti l
application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry,
including agriculture.
agriculture
[EPO Guidelines] G-III... "Industry" should be understood in its
broad sense as including any physical activity of "technical
character" (see G-III, 1.2), i.e. an activity which belongs to the useful
or practical arts [technology] as distinct from the aesthetic arts; it
does not necessarily imply the use of a machine or the manufacture of
an article and could cover e.g.
g ap process for dispersing p g fog g or for
converting energy from one form to another. Thus, Art. 57 excludes
from patentability very few "inventions" which are not already
excluded
l d d byb the
h list
li in
i Art.
A 52(2)2(2) (see
( F II 1) Methods
F-II,1)... M h d off testing i
generally should be regarded as inventions susceptible of industrial
application and therefore patentable
patentable... A mere nucleic acid
sequence without indication of a function [e.g. a EST without
known function] is not a patentable invention (EU Dir. 98/44/EC,
rec. 23). Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
576
EPC Article 82: Unity of invention
The European patent application shall relate to one invention only
or to a group off inventions so linked as to form
f a single general
inventive concept.
[EPO Guidelines2015] Part F: The EP application

Chapter V - Unity of invention
7.1: General remarks
A EP application mus "relate to one invention or to a group of inventions so linked
as to form a single general inventive concept" (see also B-VII, 1). The second of
th
these alternatives,
lt ti ii.e. th
the single-concept
i l t linked
li k d group, may give
i rise
i tto a plurality
l lit
of independent claims in the same category provided these claims comply
with Rule 43(2) (see F-IV, 3.2 and 3.3), but the more usual case is a plurality of
independent claims in different categories.

EPC Article 83: Disclosure of the invention
The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner
sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled
in the art.
art
The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought [not define
'the invention']. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the
description.
[EPO Guidelines] F-IV, 6.4 Lack of support vs. insufficient

disclosure. It should be noted that, although
g an objection
j of lack of support is
an objection under Art. 84, it can often...also be considered as an objection of
insufficient disclosure of the invention under Art. 83, the objection being that the
disclosure is insufficient to enable the skilled person to carry out the "invention"
invention
over the whole of the broad field claimed (although sufficient in respect of a
narrow "invention"). Both requirements are designed to reflect the principle
that the terms off a claim should be commensurate with, or be justified f by,
the invention... Whether the objection is raised as lack of support or as
insufficiencyy is unimportant
p in examination pproceedings;
g ; but it is important
p in
opposition proceedings since there only the latter ground is available.
EPC Article 100: Grounds for opposition
[ ≈ grounds
d for
f nullity
llit before
b f the
th courts]
t ]
Opposition may only be filed on the grounds that:
(a) the subject-matter of the European patent [i.e. the claim] is

nott patentable
t t bl under
d Articles
A ti l 52 tto 57
57;
( ) the European
(b) p p
patent does not disclose the invention in a
manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a
person skilled in the art [non compliance with Art. 83] [non compl.
with Arts. 82 or 84 is not ground for opposition/nullity];
(c) the subject-matter of the European patent extends beyond

the content of the application as filed [non compliance with Art.
( )], or,, if the patent
123(2)], p was granted
g on a divisional application
pp or on
a new application filed under Article 61 [European patent
applications filed by non-entitled persons], beyond the content of the
earlier application as filed.
EPC Art. 105a: Request for limitation or revocation
(1) At the request of the proprietor, the EP may be revoked or be
limited by an amendment of the claims...
(2) The request may not be filed while opposition proceedings in
respect of the EP are pending.
pending
EPC Art. 105b: Limitation or revocation of the EP

(1) The EPO shall examine whether the requirements laid down in the
Impl Regs.
Impl. Regs for limiting or revoking the EP have been met
met.
(3) The decision to limit or revoke the EP shall apply to the EP in all the
Contracting States in respect of which it has been granted
granted...
Art. 105c: Publication of the amended specification

p
If the EP is limited under Art. 105b (2), the EPO shall publish the
amended specification of the EP as soon as possible
possible...
EPC Article 138. Revocation of European patents
(1) Subject to Article 139, a European Patent (EP) may be revoked with effect for a
Contracting State only on the grounds that:
(a) the subject-matter
subject matter of the EP is not patentable under Articles 52 to 57;
(b) the EP does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for
it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art;
(c) the subject-matter of the EP extends beyond the content of the application as filed or,
if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed under
Article 61,, beyond
y the content of the earlier application
pp as filed;;
(d) the protection conferred by the EP has been extended; or
(e) the proprietor of the EP is not entitled under Article 60, paragraph 1.
(2) If the grounds for revocation affect the EP only in part, the patent
shall be limited by a corresponding amendment of the claims and
revoked in part.
(3) In proceedings before the competent court

co rt or authority
a thorit relating to
the validity of the EP, the proprietor of the patent shall have the right to
limit the p
patent byy amending g the claims. The p
patent as thus limited
shall form the basis for the proceedings.
EPC Article 123: Amendments
(1) The EP application or European patent [EP] may be amended in
proceedings
di b
before
f th
the EPO
EPO, in
i accordance
d with
ith th
the IImplementing
l ti
Regulations. In any event, the applicant shall be given at least one
opportunity to amend the application of his own volition
volition.
( ) The EP application
(2) pp or EP may y not be amended in such a
way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the
content of the application as filed.
(3) The EP may not be amended [e.g. in opposition, revocation

or limitation proceedings] in such a way as to extend the
protection it confers.

Transposición de la Directiva 98/44/EC a la Ley de Patentes
(LP) mediante la Ley española 10/2002 - Art. 4 LP
1. Son patentables las invenciones nuevas, que impliquen actividad

inventiva y sean susceptibles de aplicación industrial, aún cuando tengan
por objeto un producto que esté compuesto o que contenga materia
biológica o un procedimiento mediante el cual se produzca
biológica, produzca, transforme o
utilice materia biológica.
2. La materia biológica aislada de su entorno natural o producida por

medio de un procedimiento técnico podrá ser objeto de una invención, aun
cuando ya exista anteriormente en estado natural
natural.
3. A los efectos de la presente Ley, se entenderá por "materia biológica" la

materia que contenga información genética autorreproducible o
reproducible en un sistema biológico y por "procedimiento microbiológico",
cualquier procedimiento que utilice una materia microbiológica
microbiológica, que incluya
una intervención sobre la misma o que produzca una materia
microbiológica.

Implementing Regulations to Part II of the EPC (no official translation of EPC IRs
Chapter V. Biotechnological inventions into Spanish is available)
EPC Rule 26. General and definitions
(1) For European patent applications and patents concerning biotechnological inventions, the
relevant provisions of the Convention shall be applied and interpreted in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter. Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
biotechnological inventions shall be used as a supplementary means of interpretation.
(2) "Biotechnological
"Bi t h l i l inventions"
i ti " are inventions
i ti which
hi h concern a product
d t consisting
i ti off or
containing biological material or a process by means of which biological material is
produced, processed or used.
(3) "Biological material" means any material containing genetic information and capable of
reproducing itself or being reproduced in a biological system.
(4) "Plant variety" [UPOV definition] means any plant grouping within a single botanical
taxon of the lowest known rank
rank, which grouping
grouping, irrespective of whether the conditions for the
grant of a plant variety right are fully met, can be:
(a) defined by the expression of the characteristics that results from a given genotype or
combination of genotypes
genotypes,
(b) distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said
characteristics, and
(c) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged.
(5) A process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists
entirely of natural phenomena such as crossing or selection.
((6)) "Microbiological
g process"
p means anyy p process involving
g or p
performed upon
p or resulting g in
microbiological material.
EPO 2009
EPC Article 53: Exceptions to patentability
E
European patents shall
h ll nott be
b granted
t d in
i respectt of:
f
( ) inventions the commercial exploitation
(a) p of which would be
contrary to "ordre public" or morality; such exploitation shall not
be deemed to be so contrary merely because it is prohibited by law or
regulation in some or all of the Contracting States;
(b) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes

for the production of plants or animals; this provision shall not
apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof;
( ) methods for treatment of the human or animal body

(c) y byy
surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the
human or animal body; this provision shall not apply to products, in
particular
ti l substances
b t or compositions,
iti for
f use ini any off these
th
methods [first and subsequent medical uses in the form of
"purpose
purpose-limited
limited product claims].
claims]
EPC Rule 27. Patentable biotechnological
inventions
Bi t h l i l iinventions
Biotechnological ti shall
h ll also
l b be patentable
t t bl if th
they concern:
( ) biological
(a) g material which is isolated from its natural environment or
produced by means of a technical process even if it previously occurred
in nature;
(b)[ 34 ] without prejudice to Rule 28, paragraph 2, plants or animals if the
technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or
animal
i l variety;
i t
( )[ 35 ] a microbiological
(c) g or other technical process,
p , or a product
p obtained
by means of such a process other than a plant or animal variety.
Amended by decision of the Administrative Council CA/D 6/17 of 29.06.2017

[34] 29 06 2017 (OJ EPO
2017, A56), entered into force on 01.07.2017.
[35] See decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 2/07,

2/07 G 1/08 (Annex I).
I)

EPC Rule 28. Exceptions to patentability (*)
(1) Under Art. 53(a), European patents shall not be granted in respect of
biotechnological inventions which, in particular, concern the following:
(a) processes for cloning human beings; CRISPR-Cas9 technology?
(b) processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human beings
(
(eugenics);
i )
(c) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes;
(d) processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to
cause them suffering without any substantial medical benefit to man or
animal and also animals resulting from such processes.
animal,
Suffering transgenic animals with benefit to humans?
(2) Under Article 53(b),
53(b) European patents shall not be granted in respect of
plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological
process.
(*) Amended by decision of the Administrative Council CA/D 6/17 of 29.06.2017 (OJ EPO
2017, A56), entered into force on 01.07.2017. (Cf. G2/12 Tomato II; G2/13 Broccoli II)
M tl forbidden
Mostly f bidd by
b criminal
i i l law
l
A transgenic animal is not considered an animal race/variety/Art. And
it is patentable if it is therapeutically useful for humans
NON PATENTABLE
PATENTABLE

Rule 29 EPC. The human body and its elements
(1) The human body,

body at the various stages of its formation and
development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements,
including
g the sequence
q or partial
p sequence
q of a gene,
g , cannot
constitute patentable inventions.
(2) An element isolated from the human body or otherwise

produced by means of a technical process, including the
sequence or partial sequence of a gene
gene, may constitute a
patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is
identical to that of a natural element.
Myriad decision of US Supreme Court is contrary to Rule 29(2) !!
(3) The industrial application of a sequence or a partial sequence

off a gene mustt be
b disclosed
di l d in
i the
th patent
t t application.
li ti
Invenciones microbiológicas
Generalmente
G l t implican
i li ell uso d
de una nueva cepa de
d microorganismo
i i
(bacterias, hongos y levaduras, pero también virus y células) para
producir un producto químico (metabolito) nuevo o producir mejor un
producto químico conocido. El microorganismo puede ser aislado de la
naturaleza u obtenido en el laboratorio (mutación inducida, ingeniería
genética...).
éti )
- Se puede reivindicar el producto químico si es nuevo.
- Se puede reivindicar el procedimiento de obtención del producto
químico, pero esta protección suele ser débil.
- Se puede reivindicar el microorganismo como tal (posibilidad no
excluida por el CPE y obligada por el Art. 27.3(b) TRIPS).
- Si el microorganismo es de origen natural hay que reivindicarlo como
cepa aislada o purificada, para que tenga novedad.
En EEUU se comenzaro a aceptar reivindicaciones de seres vivos
desde el caso Chakrabarty (Tribunal Supremo, 1980). En Europa ya
se hacía
h í d desde
d antes.
t
El depósito de microorganismos a efectos de patente
Para cumplir el requisito de suficiencia de la descripción, y dado que es
prácticamente imposible definir una cepa de micoorganismo de forma no
ambigua mediante una descripción escrita, hay que depositar el
microorganismo para que éste sea posteriormente accesible al público.
La mayoría de países desarrollados han adoptado el Tratado de
Budapest (en vigor desde 1980), que regula las formalidades y exige una
viabilidad mínima de 30 años desde el depósito original
original.
Para cumplir con los requisitos de todos los países, debe citarse el
número de depósito en la solicitud de patente
patente, e incluir también una
descripción escrita del microorganismo.
En muchos países se permite que el público (potencial competidor) tenga
acceso a la cepa depositada desde el momento de la publicación de la
solicitud (en la EPO a través de un experto y con condiciones).
Por esto, en los casos en los que se pueda controlar el acceso físico
a la cepa, será aconsejable que la empresa mantenga la invención (y
la cepa) en secreto,
secreto sin patentarla
patentarla.
Art. 25 LP. Tratado de Budapest
2. Cuando la invención se refiera a una materia biológica no accesible al
público, o a su utilización, y cuando la materia biológica no pueda ser
descrita en la solicitud de patente de manera tal que un experto pueda
reproducir la invención, sólo se considerará que la descripción cumple con lo
dispuesto en el apartado anterior (suficiencia de la descripción) si concurren
los siguientes requisitos:
a) Que la materia biológica haya sido depositada no más tarde de la fecha

d presentación
de t ió d de lla solicitud
li it d d
de patente
t t en una IInstitución
tit ió reconocida
id
legalmente para ello. En todo caso, se considerarán reconocidas las
autoridades internacionales de depósito
p q
que hayan
y adquirido
q dicho rango
g de
conformidad con el artículo 7 del Tratado de Budapest, de 28 de abril de
1977, (…)
b) Que la solicitud, tal como ha sido presentada, contenga la información

relevante de que disponga el solicitante sobre las características de la
materia biológica depositada
depositada.
c) Que en la solicitud de patente se indique el nombre de la Institución de

d ó it y ell número
depósito ú d
dell mismo.
i
Lista de International Depositary Authorities

CECT como International Depositary Authority

“Microorganismo”, aislado o modificado
Saccharomyces
cerevisiae
- Procedimiento que utiliza un microorganismo para producir un producto

químico (metabolito)
- Microorganismo con propiedades

Agrobacterium
tumefaciens
-Microorganismo
Mi i como carrier,
i h hospedador,
d d sistema
i t celular
l l para expresar
una proteína

Validada en España como ES 2.126.962 T3
EP 794.707 B1
L Casei DN-114 001

L.

Usos de los mamíferos transgénicos
Los mamíferos
L íf con material
t i l genético
éti externo
t iincorporado
d a su
descendencia (mediante microinyección u otras técnicas) pueden
usarse como:
- modelos para investigación (p.ej. el oncoratón de Harvard, al que
se le había añadido un oncogen humano para predisponerlo a la
enfermedad, reduciendose el número de animales sacrificados en
estudios de carcinogénesis).
carcinogénesis)
- fuente de productos biológicos (proteínas): criando ovejas,
cabras cerdos
cabras, cerdos, conejos
conejos, vacas
vacas... para obtener proteínas humanas en
su leche.
- posible
ibl ffuente d
de órganos
ó para transplantes
l en ell ffuturo ((cerdos).
d )
Se pueden crear y criar ratones 'knock-out' (con uno o varios genes
inoperativos) que resultan viables y se usan como modelos para
investigar el efecto de la ausencia del gen en una enfermedad
h
humana.
Animales y plantas
ttransgénicos:
a sgé cos u un te
tema
a
cuyo uso todavía está en
debate,, pero
p cuyo
y
patentamiento ya se
decidió.
Algunos usos de plantas transgénicas
Aunque la obtención de plantas transgénicas conlleva dificultades
adicionales respecto a los animales transgénicos (pared celular en
l
lugar d
de membrana
b semipermeable,
i bl espacios
i llllenos d
de aire
i en llugar d
de
solución acuosa, etc.), se han desarrollado técnicas para obtenerlas.
E t las
Entre l utilidades
tilid d que se b
buscan están:
tá
- Propiedades mejoradas: P.ej. el tomate de Calgene, que se podía
madurar
d en lla planta:
l t se iintrodujo
t d j en 1994
1994, pero ffue retirado
ti d por una
combinación de problemas de patentes, técnicos (la maquinaria recolectora
de tomates verdes no servía),
), de marketing
g y de aceptación
p p
por el
consumidor.
- Resistencia a un herbicida (p
(p.ej.
j g
glifosato o Round-up®
p de Monsanto),
),
para poder usar éste contra las otras especies dañinas.
es ste c a a u
- Resistencia unaap
plaga
aga (p(p.ej.
ej introduciendo
oduc e do uun ge
gen de
del Bacillus
ac us
thuringensis que convierte la planta en letal para la larva del barrenillo del
cereal).

612 Caso Monsanto Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
Plantas genéticamente modificadas con posible uso
alimentario q
que han sido autorizadas en la UE (abril
( 2003))
Fuente: Biotecnología en el sector alimentario. Genoma España

Patentes de animales y plantas en US
- Tras la famosa decisión del Tribunal Supremo (por mayoría de

cinco jueces contra cuatro), se concedió la patente de
Chakrabarty en 1981.
- En 1987 se concedió una patente por una ostra poliploide
igualmente obtenida por técnicas distintas de la ingeniería
genética.
- En 1988 se concedió la p
patente del oncoratón de Harvard
(US )
- Se propuso una ley para impedirlo que
que, aunque nunca se
aprobó, supuso una moratoria de facto de 4 años a la
patentabilidad de animles.
p
- Desde 1993 se ha considerado patentable cualquier forma
de vida
vida, excepto la vida humana
humana.
Patentes de animales y plantas en Europa
Art. 53 del Convenio de la Patente Europea (CPE) de 1973 (que se

basó en el Convenio de Estrasburgo
g de 1963):
)
"No se concederán las patentes europeas para:
a)) L
Las invenciones
i i cuya publicación
bli ió o explotación
l t ió sea contraria
t i all
orden público o a las buenas costumbres, sin poderse considerar como
tal a la explotación
p de una invención p
por el mero hecho de q
que esté
prohibida en todos los Estados contratantes o en uno o varios de ellos por
una disposición legal o reglamentaria.
b) Las variedades vegetales o las razas animales (*), así como los
procedimientos esencialmente biológicos para la obtención de
vegetales
t l o animales,
i l no aplicándose
li á d esta
t di
disposición
i ió a llos
procedimientos microbiológicos ni a los productos obtenidos por dichos
p
procedimientos".
(*) "les variétés végétales ou les races animales" en francés.
"plant or animal varieties" en inglés.
"Pflanzensorten oder Tierarten" en alemán.
PROGRAM

Some areas of innovation in food technology
industry
Functional foods: probiotic microorganisms, modified foods and

dietary supplements
Food p
processing:g technologies
g for reducing
g microbial
contamination of preserved foods, extending the shelf-life of
processed foods and providing new features for food products.
Baking and extruded foods

Fuente: Vigilancia tecnológica.
tecnológica Alimentación funcional
funcional. Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía IDEA

Fuente: Vigilancia tecnológica. Alimentación funcional. Agencia de Innovación y Desarrollo de Andalucía IDEA

Some inventions related to microorganisms
Process to obtain a chemical p

product ((metabolite))
using a microorganism
Saccharomyces
y cerevisiae
Microorganism with properties
Microorganism
Mi i as a carrier,
i h host,
t
cellular system to express a protein
Agrobacterium tumefaciens Escherichia coli

strain
“Microorganismos”
Podrá constituir materia patentable:
- el microorganismo per se
- la
l sustancia
i producida
d id per se, sii es nueva
- el proced. para obtener la sustancia a partir del microorganismo
El microorganismo reivindicado per se tiene que ser nuevo e

inventivo Debe demostrarse un efecto de este microorganismo
inventivo. microorganismo.
(aplicabilidad industrial)
Puede ser aislado de la naturaleza (p.ej. screening de heces de

bebé para encontrar probióticos) u obtenido en el laboratorio por
mutación
ió iinducida,
d id iingeniería
i í genética,
éi etc. (A
(Art. 4
4.2
2 LP)
Para suficiencia
P fi i i dde lla d
descripción,
i ió puede
d ser necesarioi un DDepósito
ó it
del microorganismo bajo el Tratado de Budapest (Art. 25.2 LP).

A spreadable margarine-fat blend
EP70050 B1 - Margarine fat blend. which melts at body temp

EP70050 B1
Problema: obtener margarinas

g fáciles de untar con pocos
p ácidos grasos
g insaturados y buenas
propiedades organolépticas
Solución: procedimiento de esterificación de aceites y margarina resultante
Reivs. de: - procedimiento de obtención de un producto
- producto (composición definida por elementos estructurales)

WO2007054199 A1 - Preparation of mayonnaise products comprising soy
protein and whey protein.
Egg-free mayonnaise
product and process to
obtain it

WO2007054199 A1

WO2007054199 A1

WO2007054199 A1

WO2007054199 A1
Problema: composición de mayonesa sin huevo. Buscar un reemplazo

para ell huevo,
h manteniendo
t i d las
l características
t í ti de
d textura
t t
Solución: composición con proteina de soja y proteina de suero lácteo
Reivs.: - producto (composición de la mayonesa) definido por
elementos estructurales
- procedimento para obtener el producto
WO2007054199 A1

WO9315612 A1 - Calorie-low triglycerides for chocolate confectioneries.

WO9315612 A1

WO9315612 A1

WO9315612 A1
- Problema: encontrar triglicéridos bajs en calorías

- Estado de la Técnica: los trigicléridos con ácidos grasos de cadena larga
son bajos en calorías porque son poco digeribles
- Invención: triglicéridos formados por la mezcla de ácidos grasos de cadena
larga y media. Tienen ventajas
- Reivs.:
Reivs : - producto: fat composition (definida estructuralmente)
- producto que incorpora esta composición: food product ->
chocolate confectionery

WO9315612 A1

ES2248819 T3 - Péptidos anticongelantes de peces marinos como
aditivos para productos alimentarios

ES2248819 T3
Problems in the recombinant production
Recombinant
R bi t prepn. off antifreeze
tif peptide
tid (AFP) ttype III variant
i t HPLC 12 by
b
expression of its encoding DNA sequence derived from Ocean Pout
(Macrozoarces americanus) in a food grade microorganism such as yeast. Use
of AFT-type III HPLC 12, which antifreeze activity is almost double that of the
Winter Flounder type-I AFP, as additive in a food product for improvement is
claimed. A food grade microorganism, e.g. Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
expressing the AFP-encoding DNA sequence is claimed. AFP can prevent or
inhibit ice recrystn. and thus influence size and shape characteristics of ice and,
as a result,
result minimize potential freezing damage in food products
products.

ES2248819 T3
- Problema: evitar la recristalización de productos congelados

- Estado de la Técnica: se conocen p péptidos
p anticongelantes
g de peces
p polares.
p Hay
y
muchos problemas para obtenerlos de manera eficiente recombinantemente
Reivs. de:
- Producto alimenticio qque contiene un determinado péptido
p p (NUEVO)
( )
- Uso del péptido como aditivo en productos alimenticios
- Procedimiento de preparación del péptido a partir del DNA de 2 maneras: hasta el
péptido purificado y añadir a producto alimenticio o bien in situ en el producto
alimenticio
ES2248819 T3

ES2248819 T3

WO9738591 A1 - Process for the preparation of a food product.

WO9738591 A1

WO9738591 A1

WO9738591 A1
- Problema: mantener la consistencia de las salsas de tomate. Durante el procesado del tomate se liberan
por un lado pectinmetiltranferasas que producen ácidos pécticos y pectínicos, y por otro lado
poligalacturonasa
li l t que despolimeriza
d li i estos
t ácidos
á id -> resultado:
lt d consistencia
i t i más
á acuosa.
- EdT: por calor (malo porque provoca reacciones químicas indeseables)
- Solución: ultra-presión: se inactiva la poligalacturonasa mientras que las pectin metiltranferasas se
mantienen activas.
Reivs. de: Procedimiento de fabricación del producto de tomate / Product by process
ES2093757 T3 – Procedimiento y dispositivo de fabricación de pasteles
helados con capas crujientes – Frisco-Findus AG

ES2093757 T3
Reivs. de:
- procedimiento
di i t de d fabricación
f bi ió de
d un pastel
t l helado
h l d
- dispositivo especialmente adaptado para hacer el procedimiento
ES2098098 T3 – Un envase para alimentos apto para hornos de microondas
– Frisco-Findus AG

ES2098098 T3 – Un envase para alimentos apto para hornos de microondas
– Frisco-Findus AG
Reivs. de:
- Producto mecánico (con numeración
referenciando a figuras)

ES2319377 A1 – Procedimiento para la elaboración industrial de un producto
de bollería envasado de bajo contenido en grasas, y producto de bollería
obtenible mediante dicho procedimiento – Panrico SL

ES2319377 A1

ES2319377 A1
- Problema: mantener la humedad de productos de bollería sin que se sequen y sean bajos en calorías.
- EdT: añadir aditivos (fibras, gomas) que almacenan agua y dan buena humedad sin incrementar las
calorías (las grasas dan buena consistencia al producto pero no permiten que sea bajo en calorías). Estos
aditivos en bollería de tipo bizcocho dan mal sabor y mala textura.
- Solución: procedimiento de cocción al vapor a partir de una composición inicial estandar para bollería bollería.
- Reivs. de: - Procedimiento para obtener el producto de bollería
667 - Producto de bollería bajo en calorías Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
ES2319377 A1

ES2319377 A1

ES2299364 A1 – Condimento y su uso para inhibir el desarrollo de
mutágenos y/o carcinógenos – Universitat de Barcelona

ES2299364 A1

ES2299364 A1

ES2299364 A1
- Problema: la cocción de un alimento puede producir aminas heterocíclicas que son

carcinogénicas. Encontrar una manera de eliminarlas
- Solución: la maceración previa a la cocción con un condimento inhibe la formación de las aminas
- Reivs. de: - Procedimiento de preparación del condimento
- Condimento product-by-process
- Uso del condimento como inhibidor de la formación de aminas
- Método
Mét d para iinhibir
hibi lla fformación
ió dde aminas
i mediante
di t lla aplicación
li ió ddell condimento
di t
Solution to the exercise
Order and contents of the different parts of a patent
- TITLE OF INVENTION - (i)
- TECHNICAL FIELD - (e)
- BACKGROUND ART - (b)
- BACKGROUND ART,
ART CONTINUATION - (d)
- SUMMARY OF INVENTION - (c)
- SUMMARY OF INVENTION, CONTINUATION - (a)
- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS - (h)
- DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS - (Gg)
- CLAIM - (f)
ABSTRACT (missing)
To know more about patents ...
online training of WIPO and EPO (some is free of charge)
http://www.epo.org/learning-events.html
www.wipo.int./academy/en/

recommended book
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/patents-for-chemicals-pharmaceuticals-and-
g
biotechnology-9780199684731?q=Grubb&lang=en&cc=es
678 Nov. 2016, 625 pp, £125 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
our intensive courses (online during the pandemics)

www.ub.edu/centredepatents
684 Since 2001 ! Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona
To end this course ... a global message to take home
Let patents enter into your

professional work, whatever it is !
You will never regret it
With a little bit of effort,

effort they would help you
get a more practical viewpoint on many issues;
and, last but not least ...
with a little bit of luck, they would help you
make some extra money y
IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU.
IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP IN THE FUTURE ...
JUST CONTACT ME !

Pascual Segura - Intellectual Property - Master DIA 2021-22

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pascual Segura - Intellectual Property - Master DIA 2021-22

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master's degree on

Intellectual Property (IP)

Prof Pascual Segura

2 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

Another mistake: laymen and the media

[EPO Guidelines] G-I. Patentability. 1. Basic requirements

- SUCCESS → IMITATION → CONFLICT → VALIDITY CHALLENGE In the

8 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

PCR has become commonplace

11 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

"for the development of a

12 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

13 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

15 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

Stanley Cohen & Herbert Boyer,

Margarita Salas (†) et.

18 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General

World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros

The global COVAX vaccine distribution program, led by

French President Emmanuel Macron said he was “very

23 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

"AIPPI shares the concerns raised by the waiver proponents and

26 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

- Refusal by the patentee to grant licenses on “reasonable terms and conditions”

WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (Geneva, November 3 to 7, 2014)

27 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

España: Ley 24/2015, de 24 de julio, de Patentes

Título IX. Obligación de explotar y licencias obligatorias

Art. 90. Obligación de explotar.

30 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

31 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

32 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

34 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

Not patented in e.g.:

35 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

36 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

37 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

38 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

39 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

40 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

42 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

43 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

44 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

45 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

46 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

47 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

48 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

LIQUATS SANTIVERI SANTÉ IBERIA PAGESA

50 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

51 Sentencia firme Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

53 España, Septiembre 2019 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

54 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

55 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

56 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

58 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

59 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

62 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

64 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

65 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

Cepas de LAC, en especial, L. paracasei subsp. paracasei DN-

66 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona

special types of patent claims

67 Pascual Segura - Centre de Patents de la Universitat de Barcelona