Case Analysis of USPTO Patent Grant as on 30.12.2005

download Case Analysis of USPTO Patent Grant as on 30.12.2005

of 12

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Case Analysis of USPTO Patent Grant as on 30.12.2005

Case Analysis of USPTO Patent Grant # 5,401504

K.P.Vani* and R. Kalpana Sastry*Scientist, FCC, ANGRAU,

Introduction Major challenges-Intellectual Property Management Knowledge is an economic tool in trading Agriculture is also a trade issue Building intellectual property in national agricultural system becomes mandatory and necessity

But enactment of laws in compliance with the standards set by WTO are becoming increasingly complex Analysis of Patent Grant of USPTO #5,401,504 was done to understand its implications on intellectual property management in India


Methodology Descriptive analytical method Data collected from primary and secondary sources like internet sources bulletins books,research publications Interactions with NGOs, Lawyers, Policy makers


Turmeric Ancientspice,native of South East Asia cultivated primarily in china, Taiwan ,Srilanka,Java,Peru Australia and W.Indies India AP, Maharashtra,Orrisa,TamilNadu,Kerala

Traditional plant ,used as medicine condiment ,flavoring and culinary spice Has religious significance (Aggarwal et al ) A tuberous rhizome -commercial value - used as cure for jaundice -as coloring agent ,rich dye In ayurvedic system of medicine,therapeutical value of turmeric is recognized (Alyson,2004)

4 Sources:

USPTO Patent GrantPatent no. Patent title Inventors Assignee


Use of turmeric in wound healing

Das Suman Cohly and Harihar P.

University of Mississippi Medical Centre

Date of Filing Patent : Dec 28 th 1993 Date of Patent Grant : Mar 28 th 1995

Grant was mainly due to promote wound healing At the site of an injury by topical application At oral intake of turmeric promotes healing5

Six Claims1. Method of promoting the healing of a win a patient ,which comprises essentially administering a wound healing agent consisting of an effective amount of turmeric powder to the said patient 2. Method according to claim 1, wherein the said turmeric is orally administered to said patient 4.

Method according to claim 1, wherein the said turmeric is both orally and topically administered to the patient Method according to claim 2, wherein the said wound is a surgical wound Method according to claim 1,wherein the said wound is a body ulcer


6.3. Method according to claim 1, wherein the said said turmeric is topically administerd to said patient


National Cry Grant of the Patent spiraledprotests among sections of society in India Entire nation denounced grant on a number of accounts like:

novelty culture time honored , sacred nature heritage


Pressure to challenge grant7

Provisions as per US LawAnyone can request re-examination period of enforceability of patent Substantial new question of patentability must be presented for reexamination to be ordered Prior art during re-examination is limited to prior art patents or printed publications applied under the appropriate parts of 35 United States Code (U.S.C) 102 and 103 If ordered,actual re-examination proceeding is ex-parte in nature Decision on request must be made within three months from initial filing and remainder of proceedings must proceed with special dispatch If ordered ,re-examination proceedings will be conducted to conclusion and issuance of certificate Scope of claim cannot be enlarged by amendment


Process of Re-examination of US Patents A need to understand US Patent law and legal provisions Any person may file a request for re-examination of a patent Corporations or Governmental entities or even the patent owner


Challenge by Government of India CSIR took initiative 32 references establishing prior art existence Printed references prior to date of patent

Indias contention NO novelty Its a Prior art

USPTO ,rejected al six claims anticipated by the submitted reference

Hence invalid under 35 USC 102 and 10310

Action by patent claimers and Result from USPTO University of Mississippi patent assignee decided not to pursue the case . Transferred rights to the inventors Inventors filed a response

Argued that powder and paste had different physical properties (bio availability and absorbability ) . Oral application with honey itself has wound healing purpose

Examiner rejected all claims and made action final Subsequently,the inventors had an interview with the examiner On 20 th November 1997,examiner rejected all claims once again as being anticipated and obviousHence , rejection of the case was straightforward

Based on lack of Novelty Re-examination certificate was issued on case on April 21,1998

Proceedings to close


Lessons Need for patent officers to check for prior art before granting Need for more comprehensive patent laws National acts like PPVFR Act,2001 and Biodiversity Act ,2002 to be made enforceable Monitoring of patent information and familiarity with patent office practices Creation of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, Traditional Knowledge Resource Classification System Inclusion of traditional knowledge in International Patent Classification system Training of S and T personnel in patent claims12