TRUSTED FOR OUR EXPERIENCE
SPECIALISING IN LIFE SCIENCES
Our team of life scientists have a deep understanding of the emerging technologies in this rapidly developing area. This is allied with their knowledge of the commercial importance of these technologies and how to use them to protect your position in the marketplace.
Life Sciences & Biotech
Schlich acts for a wide range of life sciences clients who cover the gamut of enterprises from start-up businesses to large multinational corporations, from universities to mature businesses via spin out companies. Every company is unique and thus every organisation has different needs.
Our team of life sciences attorneys tailor the service we provide to match the varying aims of our clients. We are well versed in supporting the different needs of our clients, whether that is supporting a multinational business with a large existing portfolio of patent rights or a developing business founded on protecting unique technical developments.
Life Sciences & Biotech
Claiming and Protecting Your Inventions
Our Schlich attorneys are well versed in understanding and claiming rights to inventions in the life sciences arena. We prepare and file patent specifications for all aspects of life sciences technologies: from stem cell technologies to DNA-editing systems; from improved antibodies to novel microbes; from medical devices to small molecule pharmaceuticals.
Whilst our core expertise is in Europe, we have extensive experience in securing patent rights in the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, India, China and other major marketplaces. Furthermore, we have a wide network of associates in other jurisdictions with whom we co-operate in order to gain the broadest commercially useful patent rights that we can achieve. In this way, the value of a client’s intellectual property can be best protected and realised.
Start Up Companies
Start-up companies often require significant assistance in ensuring efficient use or resources to add value to the company and obtain useful protection. We understand that patent rights and intellectual property can be the most valuable possessions owned by a start-up. Thus, our role is often to understand and advise on the efficient deployment of resources in order to protect their valuable technical advances and better develop their business.
However, sometimes the transition of a business from start-up or spin out to maturity means that in-depth intellectual property advice is required as part of the foundation and organisation of a firm. To achieve this, one of our attorneys can be intimately involved with the early commercial aspirations of our client. Thus, in addition to obtaining patent rights, we can monitor and analyse the patent rights and pending patent claims owned by competitors. We also review and analyse the state of the marketplace and the effect that ongoing deals will have on our client’s business. Thus, we are able to support a developing business through from drafting the original patent applications and guided their prosecution with the support of our associates in the relevant countries.
Multinational corporations may have larger internal departments whose staff have significant experience in relation to filing and prosecution of patent applications. However, multinational breadth means that detailed jurisdiction-specific advice in often needed to obtain optimum protection. While the intention of different national patent systems can be the same, navigation of the differences between jurisdictions will often require a local expert to avoid the pitfalls. This is notably the case when jurisdictions have subtle but important differences in law and practice, e.g. between the USA and the European Patent Organisation. These differences can appear slight, but can have a significant effect on the rights an applicant can obtain.
One example of this is in the drafting and prosecution of patent application relating the developments in and the optimisation of CRISPR technologies. The CRISPR-Cas system is a Nobel-prize winning leap forward in gene editing technology and the pace of its commercial development has been intense. Schlich acts for Intellia Therapeutics, Inc., both in relation to the drafting and prosecution of patent applications relating to the development and improvement of CRISPR-Cas-based gene editing, and also in opposing the patent claims of potential competitors.
Schlich attorneys are experienced in contentious Proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) and before the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). Our attorneys are skilled in delivering cost-effective advice when considering, preparing, and prosecuting contentious Proceedings. Our focus is always on yielding commercially relevant results for our clients.
By way of example, and to continue the case study above, Schlich attorneys have successfully opposed patent claims for fundamental aspects of the use of the CRISPR system in eukaryotes. Other patents have been opposed, and limited in their scope to versions comprising particular features, such as specific guides, enzymes from unusual organisms, or changes to the enzymes. In this way, our clients are better able to operate in the marketplace. However, appeals are ongoing and Schlich attorneys will be in attendance to continue to defend our client’s position.
Read the latest insights from the Schlich team reporting recent cases relevant to the life sciences & biotech sector.
Up until now, there has been an international system for disclosing nucleic acid and proteins sequences in a format that can be used by patent offices for searching and examination of patent applications. This system is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation and is called “WIPO Standard ST.25” If you have applied for a […]
Key Revisions to the Chinese Guidelines for Patent Examination Supplementary Data Historically, in China, the rules on submitting supplementary data in favour of sufficiency and/or inventive step have been very strict throughout patent prosecution. This was bad news for certain industries (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry), where there is frequently a long delay from devising the […]
T844/18 Confirms Legal Certainty in the EPO’s Consistent Interpretation of the Priority Provisions in Art. 87(1) EPC
Overview of decision On 6 November 2020, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) formally (and finally) handed down its written decision in T844/18 relating to priority and confirmed revocation of the Broad Institute Inc.’s CRISPR/Cas9 patent EP2771468. This formal step follows the decision announced orally at the end of the hearing on 16 January […]
Snyders’ Heart Valve Patent Snyders’ patent was to an artificial heart valve that crucially can be inserted into place without removing the native damaged valve. This is explicitly stated in the description with further details of how the artificial valve includes a bendable frame that fits in natural valve position and hooks into place. However, […]
Background Regeneron owned two patents relating to transgenic mice that produce hybrid antibodies containing human variable regions and mouse constant regions. More specifically, the claimed mice contain an in situ replacement at a murine chromosomal immunoglobulin heavy chain locus and an in situ replacement of mouse VJ regions with human VJ regions at the murine […]
Background In T 1063/18 (Peppers), the Board held that Rule 28(2) EPC should be disregarded, and that plants produced by essentially biological processes should be considered patentable. Specifically, the Board found that the EPO Administrative Council’s (AC’s) amendment of Rule 28 EPC was in conflict with the prior interpretation of Article 53 EPC in G […]
Genentech owns US Patents 7,846,441 and 7,892,549 which both relate to treating cancers characterised by overexpression of the ErbB2 receptor (which includes breast cancers). The claims of these two patents relate to treating a human patient with a combination of an anti-ErbB2 antibody and a taxoid, but in the absence of an anthracycline derivative. The […]
CAFC decision in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., offers a glimmer of hope in diagnostic arena
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its judgement in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. and if the judgement stands, it may offer diagnostic companies a new way of navigating 35 U.S.C. § 101 – by way of method of preparation claims Background In 1996, two scientists […]
Get in touch
Our team of UK and European Patent Attorneys and Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys are highly knowledgeable and experienced in assisting clients with all aspects of their IP needs.
Contact us now to find out more about how we could help you and your business.