Dr. Nabeela Rasheed (Amunix Pharmaceuticals), Daniel Beck (Wrays), Tony Proctor (Potter Clarkson LLP)
The admissibility of post-filing data varies across jurisdictions, making its effectiveness subject to national patent office rules. Join our panel as they discuss these differences and the impact they have on the strategy of patent prosecution in different jurisdictions.
In Europe, post-filing evidence can be used to counteract inventive step objections at the EPO (T939/92 and T1329/04), and in limited circumstances to overcome a lack of sufficiency (T609/02)—how does this impact strategy for patent application and prosecution in Europe?
The USPTO allows submission of post-filing evidence that supports prophetic disclosure (Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel)—does this effectively allow earlier filing for the patent?
The BASF Corporation  APO 34 decision in Australia seems to confirm that post-filing data can establish sufficiency—how does this differ from the approaches taken in Europe and the US?
How do these differences affect a patent strategy for global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies?