Patent Related Archives · Page 4 of 7

How to protect IP 如何保护知识产权？

Intellectual property usually refers to the intangible property rights associated with ideas, writing, image and reputation. Different intangible properties are protected by different laws. For example, the originality that concerns authorship are protected by copyright law. Any original writings, graphs, arts, styles are automatically entitled to copyright protection. However, copyright does not protect the ideas contained in writings, graphs, arts, and styles. A painter’s painting of an apple is protected from copying by plagiarism, but other people can still make and paint the same apple and draw their paintings of apple. If an idea is new and useful, people can resort to patent law to protect it from being used by other people. Different to copyright law, patent law prevents other people from using and making a patented idea other than its own inventor. Once an idea is patented, other people cannot use and make the same idea, even if the idea comes out of their creation. Technology and product design related new ideas are mostly protectable by patent law. This protection has a limited time of 20 years. In exchange of this protection, inventors need to disclose the technical knowledge to the public domain. In the business world, there are many situations when a business may be better off when certain details of a product are kept secret and undisclosed to defer competition and thwart rivals. For this need, there is trade secret law. Anything that is kept secret by the business owner is protected by trade secret law. On the other hand, a time accumulated good will and reputation associated with a name or a product symbol is protected by trade mark law.

Therefore, business information concerning business strategies, plans, marketing schemes, pricing and costs, human resources, customer informations and connections, manufacturing processes, as long as they are not generally known, they can be kept secret and be protected by trade secret law. Many inventors also protect their patentable inventions as trade secrets during the initial stages of development. Later they seek patent protection when the invention is perfected, but at this juncture, the trade secret laws give the inventor the right to sue people who steal the invention. The protection of trade secret starts the moment the inventor discovers the secret, this is especially important where the invention may have a short commercial life that is constantly evolving.

Different from the monopoly exclusive rights of a patent, trade secret owners have no monopoly over their information. Trade secret owners have the legal right to prevent people from using or disclosing a trade secret without permission only when 1) people are bound by a duty of confidentiality not to disclose; 2) people obtain the secret through improper means, such as bribery, theft or industrial espionage. A trade secret is any information that is useful and private, it automatically ceases to exist the moment it becomes public knowledge.

In the US, there are federal laws for patent, trade mark and copyright protection, there are only state laws for trade secret protection. However, all countries have laws against misappropriation of trade secrets.

知识产权通常是指与想法，写作，形象和声誉相关的财产权。不同的无形财产由不同的法律保护。例如，版权的原创性受版权法保护，任何原始文字，图形，艺术，设计样式都自动享有著作权的保护。但是，版权不保护包含在这些著作，图形，艺术和风格中的思想。受版权保护一个苹果画不被复制和抄袭，但其他人仍然可以画同一个苹果。

如果一个想法是新而有用的，人们可以诉诸专利法，以保护它不被其他人使用。不同于版权法，专利法可以防止其他人使用相似的想法。一旦一个想法被申请专利，其他人将无法使用同样的想法，即使这个想法出于他们自己的原创。在要打退对手的商业战场上，专利赋予最强的垄断保护。技术和产品设计相关的新思路往往需要专利法的强力保护。但专利只保障20年。而且作为交换，发明人需要公开该专利相关的技术信息。在商业世界里，竞争往往需要保密信息。如果某种产品信息不容易被对手琢磨出来，这种信息最好是做为秘密保护。这种秘密受商业秘密法保护。凡是未公开的由业主保密的信息都受商业秘密法律保护。

因此，关于商务战略，计划，销售计划，定价和成本，人力资源，客户信息和连接，制造工艺，只要它们通常不是已知的，它们可以作为商业秘密，通过商业秘密法律保护。许多发明者在产品发展的初级阶段，把产品信息作为商业秘密来保护自己的专利发明, 在他们发明完善寻求专利保护之前，商业秘密法赋予发明人起诉别人偷盗他的发明。商业秘密保护开始于发明者发现这个秘密的那一刻。

与专利的垄断独占权不同，商业秘密所有人不能垄断该信息。商业秘密所有者只有权阻止两类人：1）有责任保密的人; 2）通过不正当手段获取该秘密的的人，如贿赂，盗窃或商业间谍获取秘密。商业秘密一旦为公众所知的那一刻，它自动停止存在。

另一方面，由广告和时间积累才有的声誉由商标法保护。

在美国，对专利，商标和版权保护有联邦法律，对商业秘密的保护只有州法律。然而，全世界所有国家都有反对盗用商业机密的法律。

Mayo Framework and Preemption Question 什么技术在美国是被专利保护的？

Mayo Framework and Preemption Question: what is patentable under 35 USC 101. The question of patentable subject matter is nominally grounded in the statute 35 U.S.C. § 101: patent rights to anyone who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”

During the course of enforcing the law, the Supreme has interpreted that the statute also prohibits patents on abstract ideas, products of nature, and natural phenomena.

In Mayo v. Prometheus at the Supreme Court raises the question of whether a patent claim that covers correlations between blood tests and patient health is ‘patentable’ under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court’s analysis creates a framework for patent eligibility in which almost any method claim of “the law of nature” can be invalidated.

Prometheus has a method patent of analyzing the effectiveness of thiopurine drugs for treating gastrointestinal disorders. Prometheus offers a blood test which analyzes metabolite levels of thiopurine drugs in patients. Mayo sought to offer a competing blood test at a lower price.

Prometheus promptly sued Mayo for infringement.

Claim 1 of the relevant patent reads as follows:
(1) A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:
(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and
(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder,
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8×10^8 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and
wherein the level of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8×10^8 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.

1. The preemption question

One of Mayo’s principal arguments in its brief and at oral argument is that Prometheus’s patent preempts the use of a law of nature — namely, the relationship between metabolite levels and patient health.

Justice Kennedy began the preemption questioning by asking whether a system of measurements that continually monitor drug retention would be patentable. Mayo’s counsel responded that it would depend on the breadth of the claims. “Claim specificity is key.” According to Mayo, if Prometheus’s patent had provided competitors room to develop different, more accurate metabolite levels it may have passed the 101 test. But, in this case Prometheus’s patent preempted any reduction in dosage if a patient’s metabolite levels were above 400 pmol. In Mayo’s view, “incidental” steps added to a natural phenomenon were insufficient to avoid preemption. Thus, any patent consisting only of a natural phenomenon and “incidental steps” would be preempted under Mayo’s test.

The Supreme Court agrees with Mayo’s argument in its decision.

the US Patent & Trademark Office has since distributed a short memorandum to its examiners providing guidance.

Examiners must continue to ensure that claims, particularly process claims, are not directed to an exception to eligibility such that the claim amounts to a monopoly on the law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea itself. In addition, to be patent-eligible, a claim that includes an exception should include other elements or combination of elements such that, in practice, the claimed product or process amounts to significantly more than a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea conventional steps specified at a high level of generality appended thereto.

The Supreme Court found that because the laws of nature recited by the patent claims – the relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a thiopurine drug dosage will prove ineffective or cause harm – are not themselves patent eligible, the claimed processes are likewise not patent-eligible unless they have additional features that provide practical assurance that the processes are genuine applications of those laws rather than drafting efforts designed to monopolize the correlations.

什么技术在美国是被专利保护的？美国专利法规定了4大类别：新的有用的1）方法；2）机器；3）生产物；4）合成物。
在执行专利法过程中，最高法院在对专利法的保护范围阐释中，进一步排除了下列内容的专利保护：1）抽象想法；2）自然产物；3）自然现象。
在Mayo v. Prometheus专利侵权案中，Prometheus有一个方法专利，即通过检测病人血液中硫化嘌呤的量来确定医疗效果。Prometheus 提供一个血液检测试剂盒。该试剂盒使用这个专利方法来检测病人血液。Mayo也提供一个相似的试剂盒，只是价格更便宜。Prometheus于是起诉Mayo 专利侵权。
当大法官问，连续监测一个药物在血液中的含量可不可以被专利保护时，Mayo 的律师的观点是，应该取决于专利权诉求范围。如果该专利权诉求范围可以允许竞争对手改进检测范围，而不仅仅是自然现象，就可以被专利保护。
最高法院判Mayo 没侵权，Prometheus 专利无效。
美专利局于是出笼了专利审查指导，要求专利审查员在审查方法专利时，进一步考虑该专利申请是否具有比仅仅描述自然现象远多的应用内容。