Interference, with patents

When a contractor indicates that he is or may be delayed, take him seriously and solve the problem immediately. Do not interfere with the way in which the contractor carries out his work, unless he is patently incompetent. 

In a patent survey [76] about shampoos over the period 1968-1978 the so-called cryptoanionic alkyl ether carboxylate based on tridecyl alcohol with 6.5 mol EO has been mentioned for a conditioning shampoo in combination with an amphoteric and cationic surfactant [77]. Because of the low interference with cationic surfactants no negative effect on the conditioning properties has been found [78]. 

In 1956 Brown, in a series of patents(68-75), disclosed that clays could be treated with di-, tri-, or tetra-substituted ammonia derivatives. Later, McLaughlin, et al.(76,77), introduced cationic polymers as permanent clay protective chemicals. A series of published results describing laboratory and field applications soon became available(78-81). Structural details of the cationic polymers appeared in patents(82-85). In general the polymers are polyamine derivatives, mostly quaternary in nature. Theng(86,87) has discussed how the multiple cationic centers in these polymers can interact and permanently protect clays. Callaway(88) et al. has noted that cationic polymers may interfere with the performance of crosslinked fracturing fluids. 

Development, release into the environment, and commercialization of GMO have been greatly debated since the first GMO was sown, more than three decades ago (8). The main questionable aspects regarding GMOs have been centered on four areas, namely, environmental concerns (9,10), potential harm to human health (11,12), ethical concerns interferences with nature and individual choice (13), and patent issues (14,15). 

The publication of the patent occurs automatically at the end of an 18-month period following the date of fifing or priority application. It is important to remember that this publication now constitutes prior art. If the publication would interfere with more important patent applications, or is incomplete it is possible to abandon prior to publication with a consequent loss of the priority date. 

After submission to a patent office, the file is examined for some basic formal requirements and, if adequate, is given a filing date. A first indication about the chances of a patent application may be obtained from a search report which is issued by the European Patent Office and also for international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (see below). In most cases, the search report will list a number of earlier patents or publications and indicate whether these interfere with the proposed claims of the examined file. As a consequence of the search report the applicant can amend the proposed claims before the examination is initiated. 

A second exception in the USA which influences the effective priority date of an invention (but not the official priority of the patent ) is the so-called swearing-back according to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37 (37 CFR, 1.131). If there is an interference with other patents or patent applications, the US patent authority will ask the applicant of USA-derived inventions to provide detailed information on the actual time of conception of the invention, reduction to practice and on all further steps which finally led to the current application. Proof of those activities can be provided by laboratory notebooks and other relevant documents, e.g. those which prove the involvement of a patent attorney during the process of drafting and filing the application in question. This information will be considered in order to assess the effective time when the invention was made and when it was reduced to practice in order to fulfil the requirements for patentability. 

Lack of novelty may be indicated by all kinds of earlier publications or other disclosures of the invention to the public. As already mentioned, prior publication by the inventor or applicant also interferes with novelty and can be used as an argument against their own patent application. This does not fully apply to US inventions, the content of which can be published by the inventor within 12 months before filing a patent. Novelty of an invention may also be contested by the proof that the invention was already in use, for example, as a manufacturing process which was kept secret. 

The question arises whether there is any incentive for an employed researcher to patent an invention, apart from the contractual obligation to do so as an employee. Filing and defending a patent often results in a lot of additional work for the inventor which in the case of a patent defense may be related to work done months or years before, while the inventor s research proceeded in the meantime. Publications on the subject and on later improvements may be held back in order to avoid supporting potential competitors. Thus the interest of a researcher to patent an invention interferes with the interest to publish and to turn the attention to new research fields. Specific measures by the employer, for example a bonus for a successful patent application or other awards, but at least an adequate recognition of the achievement should be considered as incentive for inventors. In this context it is noteworthy that a rather unique law in Germany entitles inventors to compensation payments by the employer. 

The antibiotic thiolactomycin (43), a fermentation product from a Nocardia species containing an unusual thiolactone moiety was patented as antibiotic no. 2-200 and subsequently reported in the literature in 1982 [73,74]. It resembles a sugar-derived a,/3-unsaturated 4-thioglycono-1,4-lactone and was found to be a broad-spectmm antibiotic [75] by interference with the fatty acid metabolism of bacteria and also inhibited inducible /3-lactamases [76]. A de novo synthesis of the racemate was reported by a Du Pont group in 1984 [77]. Chambers and Thomas [78] reported the synthesis of the (55j-enantiomer in 1989 and concluded from its optical rotation that the natural product is the (5i )-enantiomer. 

Interferences are long, costly, and complex procedures that are laden with procedural pit-falls for both the senior party and, especially, the junior party. The senior party is heavily favored to be awarded the right to a patent on the contested invention (149). Based on the advantage of the senior party in such interference proceedings, patent applications should be filed in the United States as quickly as possible to increase the probability of achieving senior status in any interference that may be declared. 

Crude tall oil is a mixture of fatty acids, resin acids, and neutrals (i.e., no carboxylic acid functionality). The background section relates that neutrals interfere with the separation of the fatty acids from the resin acids and in industrial practice the neutrals are removed by molecul distillation. However, it is difficult to separate the neutrals from the other components because of vapor pressure similarity considerations. Tall oil soap, the precursor to crude tall oil, is a pasty emulsion of the neutrals and the sodium salts of the fatty and resin acids. The patent states that it is possible to extract neutrals from the soap with a liquid hydrocarbon solvent, but the prior art discussion relates that subsequent liquid hydrocarbon solvent recovery steps are relatively difficult. The neutrals can be separated from the soaps by a hydrocarbon solvent, incidentally, because the neutrals are lipophiles whereas the soaps are ionic and do not dissolve in the hydrocarbon. Similarly the neutrals will dissolve in a supercritical fluid like ethylene, or propane, or the chlorofluorocarbons, and the use of these gases in the supercritical state is the invention. Like the case of liquid hydrocarbon solvents, the ionic soap compounds will not dissolve in the supercritical gases. CO2 is specifically not listed among the gases, and we shall discuss the case of CO2 extraction of the emulsion later which is the subject of the next patent. 

The need to defend paper examples arises rarely because few patents interfere with other grants. According to the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, about... 

Some analyzers have programs that assess the degrees of hemolysis and lipemia in the samples, but these are designed for use with human samples (Vermeer, Thomassen, and de Jonge 2005) and some dyes (e.g.. Patent Blue V. can interfere with these serum indices but not the analytical methods Darby and Broomhead 2008). Some xenobiotics may interfere due to their fluorescent properties. 

Darby, D., and C. Broomhead. 2008. Interferences with serum indices measurement, but not chemical analysis on the Roche Modular by Patent Blue V. Annals of Clinical... 

This competition also led to an unprecedented international patent race, which has produced more than 1000 patent applications, and several patent interferences with narrow differences in priority dates. 

Whereas the reactivity of a bleach system can be controlled by its concentration, selectivity is an intrinsic property. To suppress dye damage, a number of patents claim the use of agents able to interfere with the reactive bleach intermediates such as radicals or singlet oxygen [75]. In most cases, however, their effect is only minimal or dye-specific [76,77]. 

---