Sectors
Jurisdictions
- Australia
- Brunei
- Cambodia
- China
- Hong Kong
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Laos
- Macau
- Malaysia
- Mongolia
- Myanmar
- Nepal
- New Zealand
- North Korea
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Singapore
- South Korea
- Sri Lanka
- Taiwan
- Thailand
- Vietnam
- East Timor
- Bangladesh
- Azerbaijan
- Kazakhstan
- Tajikistan
- Egypt
- Cyprus
- Iran
- Israel
- Lebanon
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Jordan
- Bahrain
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- Syria
- UAE
- Turkey
- Pacific Islands
- Russia
- France
- UK
- Canada
- USA
- Latin America
- Africa
IPOS Rejects First Section 80 Patent
Issued: June 01 2010Singapore Patent No SG 42669, entitled Arachidonic Acid and Methods for the Production and Use thereof, owned by Martek Biosciences Corporation “has the dubious honour of being the first Singapore patent revoked by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) under Section 80 of the Singapore Patents Act,” report lawyers at KASS International.
Kuala Lumpur-based KASS also has offices in Singapore and Indonesia.
“By way of history, the SG 42669 patent, a national phase application of PCT Application No. PCT/US96/00182 entered into national phase in Singapore on July 2, 1997 as Singapore application No. 9703038-1, and was subsequently granted on 30 March 1999,” the firm said.
The patentee submitted amendments to the patent claims on September 6, 2006, pursuant to Section 83 of the Patents Act and rule 80(3) of the Patents Rules. The amendments were subsequently advertised on 30 October 30, 2006, in Patents Journal No. 200610A without any further opposition accepted after the prescribed opposition period.
“These amendments were allowed as they did not result in the specification disclosing any additional matter, nor did they extend the protection conferred by the patent,” the firm said.
Cargill International Trading filed an application with the IPOS to revoke the Singapore patent, alleging that the patent was invalid as the claims were not novel and inventive.
“Initially, the Singapore Patent Registrar instructed for the SG 42669 patent to be re-examined to determine the validity and patentability of the invention,” the firm said. “Just before the reexamination was conducted, Martek had submitted amendments to narrow the claims. However, the Examiner found that the amended claims failed to overcome the novelty and inventive step objections, and suggested that it should be revoked. In view of the result of the re-examination decision, the Registrar ruled that SG 42669 was invalid.”
Most Read Articles
Magazine Issues
Tags
Baker & McKenzie USPTO WIPO DLA Piper Tilleke & Gibbins Anand and Anand TRIPS Delhi High Court Rouse IPOS Remfry & Sagar Hogan Lovells WTO PCT SIPO Spruson & Ferguson KIPO Bird & Bird Lex Orbis EPO Lall Lahiri & Salhotra Krishna & Saurastri Anaqua INTA IPAB JPO Davies Collison Cave patrick mirandah co King & Wood Mallesons AJ Park Kim & Chang Indian Patent Office Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Shearn Delamore & Co Deacons Madrid Protocol Tay & Partners Chang Tsi & Partners Pinsent Masons LLS Lee & Ko Khaitan & Co Blake Dawson USTR K&L Gates Drew & Napier TIPO Allen & Gledhill Griffith Hack Lee and Li