A Comparative Analysis of the Australian Patent Office's Examination of Biotechnology Reach-Through Patent Claims

29 Pages Posted: 4 Mar 2009

See all articles by Andrew F. Christie

Andrew F. Christie

Melbourne Law School

Amanda Lim

University of Melbourne

Abstract

In an earlier study we analysed how the United States Patent and Trade Mark Office, the European Patent Office and the Japan Patent Office (jointly referred to as the 'Trilateral Offices' or TOs) assessed reach-through patent claims in biotechnology, under the requirements of 'utility', 'written description' and 'enablement' (as they are referred to in the US). We found that any claim that was a reach-through claim was assessed to be invalid by the TOs, and therefore filtered out from grant. This study analyses how the same claims from the TOs' study are assessed by the Australian Patent Office (APO), under the equivalent Australian requirements of 'manner of manufacture and description of use', 'clarity, succinctness and fair basis', and 'full description and best method'. We find that under Australian practice not all types of reach-through claims are filtered out from grant of a patent. This suggests that one or other of the patent offices is applying the wrong standard in examination of these claims. In our view, the examination standard applied by the APO is too lenient. The Australian legislation should be reformed by adopting patentability requirements that mirror the utility, written description and enablement requirements of the TOs.

Keywords: patents, trade marks, reach-through patent claims, biotechnology, utility, written description, enablement, United States Patent and Trade Mark Office

JEL Classification: K0, K00, K19, K29, K39

Suggested Citation

Christie, Andrew F. and Lim, Amanda, A Comparative Analysis of the Australian Patent Office's Examination of Biotechnology Reach-Through Patent Claims. Monash University Law Review, Vol. 33, p. 290, 2007; Monash University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007/22; U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 388. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1349416

Andrew F. Christie (Contact Author)

Melbourne Law School ( email )

University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Victoria 3010
Australia

HOME PAGE: http://www.andrewchristie.com

Amanda Lim

University of Melbourne ( email )

185 Pelham Street
Carlton, Victoria 3053
Australia

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
87
rank
283,462
Abstract Views
890
PlumX Metrics