Currently browsing: Patents

The research exemption for patents has long been a vital mechanism in striking a balance between protecting inventors’ rights and promoting scientific exploration. Within Europe, Belgium historically provided a notoriously broad exemption relating to research. However, on the 1st of June this year, the Unified Patent Court will start. One of the aims of the new patent court is harmonization and Belgium and other countries that will join the system have aligned their patent law. The changes that have been introduced in the Belgian law will have an immediate impact on companies, universities and institutes and concern general research as well as research and development for medicines specifically.

Unfortunately, many misconceptions exist when dealing with patents. A number of those are addressed in this article.

There are different categories of patent claims that can be used. In general, a distinction can be made between two different categories.
A first general category of patent claims is the “product claim”, which relates to physical entities such as products, devices and apparatuses, but can also include, for example, chemical substances and compositions.
A second general category of patent claims is the “process claim”, which relates to activities, such as methods, processes and uses, as long as some material product is used for effecting such activities. However, there are some exceptions to this which are explicitly excluded from patentability, such as biological processes for the production of plants or animals, and surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic methods for treatment of the human or animal body. Whereas, product claims relating to products for the use in surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic methods are permitted.

In Europe, according to the EPC and its Protocol on Interpretation (Protocol herein after), the claims should be interpreted adopting a balanced approach that combines a fair protection for the patent holder with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties.

In this perspective, the claims should not be interpreted strictly, in the sense of only the dictionary definition of a certain wording. Conversely, these claims should not be treated as mere guidelines, since the claims play a determinative part in deciding on the patent’s scope. The Protocol thus requires a middle ground between the two extremes to guarantee a balance between fairness to the patent holder and giving the public reasonable certainty as to what the claims actually cover.

With respect to project developments, often times it is necessary to engage in discussions with third parties,  including strategic information concerning the project without binding the parties to any cooperation agreement that regulates their working relationship.

However, it is important that the confidential nature of this information be preserved to protect the owner of the ‘strategic information’ and any advantage it affords them.