Psychedelics and patent linkage feature in Open Forum patents stream

The session focused on differences between jurisdictions in procuring and enforcing IP rights. IP protection for cannabis and psychedelics has been available in some jurisdictions for some time; in some jurisdictions, regulatory acceptance and patent protection is rapidly easing; and in some jurisdictions the use and protection of these substances is strictly prohibited.  Surprising data was presented regarding the extent of use, in particular of cannabis-related products, in Canada and Australia, where its use was legalised some time ago.  
 
The lack of federal legalisation in the USA has precluded the obtention of federal trademarks. Our panellists provided tips on the various types of protection that are or are not available in the US, Canada, Australia and ASEAN countries (patents on compositions, methods, plants, seeds, paraphernalia, processing equipment, plant patents, trademarks, industrial design for packaging, and the list goes on!)

Thanks to our moderator Donna A. Tobin of Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld in the USA, and speakers Dr Carmela De Luca of Smart & Biggar in Canada, and Dr Claire Gregg of DCC in Australia. 

Our speakers covered areas such as how and where generative AI tools like ChatGPT can be used, as well as the importance of linking features in patent specifications in a clear and demonstrable way. 

Use of plain language, and short sentences with one point per sentence, was recommended, as well as being consistent with your terminology when drafting high tech patents. The applications will be read by people not necessarily technically trained or experts in the field, the panel noted, so terms like ‘frangible’ should be removed in favour of plainer English. These tips will also help should your application be translated – a clearer application is less likely to lose nuances in translation!

Thanks to our moderator: Johan Örtenblad of Noréns in Sweden, who was joined by Patricia Koch of Balder IP in Spain, Dima Litvak of Reinhold Cohn Group in Israel, and Pete Sadler of Reddie & Grose in the UK.

A fast-moving area for patents is that of biotechnological inventions, where biological material contains genetic information. Article 53 of the European Patent Convention includes exceptions around patentability, such as processes for cloning human beings. 

Speakers also noted that European law has recently enshrined that there shall be no patents for plants or animals exclusively obtained by an essential biological process. However, this is a complex and developing area and there are nonetheless patent-eligible biotechnological inventions. 
    
Thanks to our moderator: Clarissa Regler of Winter Brandl in Germany, and speakers Rana Gosain of Daniel Law in Brazil, Dr Serge Shahinian of Lavery Lawyers in Canada, and Archana Shanker of Anand & Anand in India. 

Thanks to our session sponsor: Deris.

Delegates were enlightened about the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States which uses this classic approach in attempting to balance the rights of patentees with generic medicines and patients to provide a statutory framework intended to bring generic pharmaceuticals to market in a timely manner. 

But, we learnt, this is not the only approach. Europe, for example, focuses its efforts on data and marketing exclusivities to promote R&D as well as facilitate generic market entry, while India uses a hybrid approach without formal linking. Rather, India combines a developmental safety harbour with patent opposition practices to reduce evergreening. 

The panel provided an overview of each of their jurisdictional systems and discussed practice tips from each perspective as well as how to coordinate efforts between the jurisdictions when seeking to bring a generic to market.

Thanks to our moderator: Branko Pejic of Greenblum & Bernstein in the USA, and speakers Juhua Luo of CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office in China, Dr Alessandro Pontiroli of Zentiva in Italy, Dr Deepa K. Tiku of K&S Partners in India, and Rafał Witek of WTS Partners of Poland. 

The popular session provided a practical discussion and demonstration of how to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and the various AI tools and services at our disposal, to more effectively service our clients - from searching/patentability to drafting patent applications to prosecuting patent applications. It covered the pitfalls in using AI tools and what to watch out for when selecting an AI tool. Tips and issues raised by panellists included: Do clients need to know you're using AI? Watch out for hallucinations - chatbots can invent and create things!

Thanks to our moderator: Brett Slaney of CPST Intellectual Property in Canada, and our speakers: Dina Blikshteyn of Haynes and Boone in the USA, Dr Sébastien Ragot of E. Blum & Co in Switzerland, and Lionel Vial of Cabinet Lionel Vial – Saclay IP in France

Thanks to our session sponsor, Al Tamimi & Co. 

Next steps

If you’d like to get more involved with FICPI’s work around patents, take a look at our Study & Work groups on areas including international patent matters, and European patents.