Key messages
 Inventions |
|
 |
The TRIPS Agreement does not define what an “invention” is. You as a legislator may therefore formulate a narrow definition of this term and exclude various subject matter from patentability. |
| Naturally occurring substances |
|
|
Naturally occurring substances do not result from someone’s creativity and can thus be treated as mere discoveries. |
|
The mere isolation of natural substances does not necessarily justify patent protection. |
|
The process of isolating natural substances from their nature may justify process patent protection. |
| Patentability criteria |
|
|
You as a legislator may strictly define in the law or examination guidelines the patentability criteria “new”, “inventive step” and “industrial application” in order to keep a broad public domain. |
Patentability criteria |
|
|
|
You as a patent examiner may strictly apply the patentability criteria “new”, “inventive step” and “industrial application” to keep a broad public domain. |
|
|
You can consider a wide prior art. |
|
|
For assessing non-obviousness, you can take foreign expertise into account. |
| Incremental innovations (new uses, product derivatives) |
|
|
|
New uses can be denied patent protection by excluding them from patentable subject matter under the methods of treatment exception and by strictly applying a high novelty/inventive step standard. |
|
|
Product derivatives without enhanced efficacy can be excluded from patentable subject matter (Indian approach). Alternatively, they can be denied patent protection due to lack of novelty/ non-obviousness (US approach). |
|
|
Alternative means of protection, such as utility models or compensatory liability regimes exist. |