Patent Expiration of Rilutek to Cause Negative Growth in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Treatment Market by 2018

Patent Expiration of Rilutek to Cause Negative Growth in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Treatment Market by 2018 is a new market research publication announced by Reportstack. The amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment market value will decline from $64 million in 2013 to $38 million by 2018, at a negative Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 10.05%.

The company’s latest report states that the largest factor in this decline, which will occur over seven major markets (7MM: the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Japan), will be the patent expiration of Rilutek (riluzole), the only approved therapy for ALS.

As a consequence, it forecasts that the ALS treatment market in the US is set to suffer a substantial reduction in sales over the forecast period, from $38 million in 2013 to $16 million by 2020, at a negative CAGR of 16.10%.

http://www.whatech.com/members-news/reports-industrial/23749-patent-expiration-of-rilutek-to-cause-negative-growth-in-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis-treatment-market-by-2018

MyScript® To Bring Power Of Handwriting To iOS 8

MyScript®, the acknowledged market leader in accurate, high-performance handwriting recognition and digital ink management technology, announces the support of MyScript handwriting recognition technology for iOS 8.

MyScript technology provides a versatile and natural way for users to leverage handwritten input on iOS devices. For the upcoming iOS 8 release, MyScript is readying two input panel applications that offer user friendly alternatives to keyboard entry. The apps will be available on the App Store. The core technology can be leveraged by developers to create applications for iOS 8 including note-taking applications, music notation programs, education applications, games and more.

The first input panel application in development for iOS 8 allows real-time text input using fingertip and stylus. The auto scrolling input panel will provide an alternative to onscreen and physical keyboard in any application requiring text entry such as email, text editor, calendar, web browser, SMS, MMS, etc. Handwritten input will be converted into digital text in real time in the active application. The input panel will allow the user to leverage intuitive gestures for easy editing. Words and sentences will be quickly moved, split, joined, overwritten, and erased. To help users write long words and phrases, the writing area will scroll over progressively.

The second app under development for iOS 8 allows superimposed character input. This input panel allows users to continuously and quickly write characters on top of each other, making short text entry convenient and efficient. Users will be able to easily input phone numbers, look up names in address books, compose tweets, and write chat or SMS messages with their fingertips. Handwriting will be captured at rotations up to 40°, allowing for greater flexibility for mobile users. The handwritten input will be instantly recognized, converted to digital text, and sent to the target application.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2028131#ixzz36ILY7qdx

MasterCard Patent Would Add Bitcoin To Global Shopping Cart

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2293465-mastercard-patent-would-add-bitcoin-to-global-shopping-cart

Global financial services giant MasterCard (MA) has filed a patent that would seek to incorporate bitcoin into its design for a planned global online shopping cart.

Entitled 'Payment Interchange For Use With Global Shopping Cart', the filing was submitted by the New York company to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in March 2013.

The patent application is part of a series of filings related to MasterCard's effort to build a global online shopping cart catering to online shoppers.

This global shopping cart would be based on each store offering its own individual cart, thereby making it easier for consumers to dedicate carts to larger projects, such as weddings or home renovations.

Alnylam Announces United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Issues Patent Covering RNAi Therapeutics for the Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) Infection

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:ALNY), a leading RNAi therapeutics company, announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a new patent (U.S. patent no. 8,618,277, or "'277 patent") in the company's McSwiggen patent estate. The McSwiggen patent estate broadly describes chemical modifications of RNAi therapeutics needed to achieve "drug-like" properties in siRNA, the molecules that mediate RNAi. Specifically, the '277 patent includes claims that the company believes are critical for the development of RNAi therapeutics for the treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This patent is held exclusively by Alnylam and is not licensed to any third parties. The McSwiggen patent estate comprises a core component of Alnylam's overall intellectual property (IP) estate for the advancement of RNAi therapeutics, and was recently obtained through the company's acquisition of Sirna Therapeutics from Merck.

"We are pleased with the USPTO's decision to issue the '277 patent from our McSwiggen patent family, a key component of the IP estate we recently obtained through our acquisition of Sirna Therapeutics from Merck. Our '277 patent has broad, sequence-independent claims on chemically modified siRNAs which we believe are critical for the development and commercialization of RNAi therapeutics for the treatment of HBV infection," said Laurence Reid, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer of Alnylam. "Our IP estate remains a cornerstone in our efforts to advance RNAi therapeutics to patients in need. In the case of the '277 patent, we intend to maximize the value of this newly issued IP solely through the advancement of ALN-HBV -- our GalNAc-conjugated siRNA targeting the HBV genome for the treatment of HBV infection -- where we expect to select our Development Candidate by this year's end and to file an investigational new drug application at or around year-end 2015."

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140612-905682.html

Catalyst Files Patent for Next-Generation Technology Assisted Review Based on 'Reinforcement Learning'

 Catalyst Repository Systems -- a pioneer in developing secure, cloud-based software to help corporations and their law firms take control of e-discovery, compliance and regulatory matters -- today announced it has applied for a patent on the type of continuous learning capability it invented for its next-generation technology assisted review (TAR 2.0) platform, Insight Predict.

Described in the patent application as "reinforcement learning based document coding," Catalyst's TAR technology is able to continuously learn from actions taken by the review team throughout the review process. With reinforcement learning, certain actions -- such as coding a document as responsive or not or adding additional documents -- enable the system to continue to grow "smarter" in its ability to select relevant documents.

What is Reinforcement Learning?

Reinforcement learning differs from older TAR 1.0 systems which require training by a high-level attorney. This expensive and time-consuming approach requires the senior attorney to first review and code an initial training set of randomly selected documents. With Catalyst's reinforcement learning technology, the full review team can begin right away. As reviewers' judgments are fed back into the system and new documents added, the system's selection and ranking of relevant documents continuously improves.

A new, peer-reviewed study by two leading experts in e-discovery validates the effectiveness of continuous learning technologies in e-discovery. In a paper they will present at the Association of Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR) international conference in July 2014, "Evaluation of Machine-Learning Protocols for Technology-Assisted Review in Electronic Discovery," Gordon V. Cormack and Maura R. Grossman conclude that non-random training methods using continuous active learning "require substantially and significantly less human review effort" and yield "generally superior results."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/catalyst-files-patent-for-next-generation-technology-assisted-review-based-on-reinforcement-learning-2014-06-11

Unify Wins 2014 World Trademark Review Industry Award

 Unify today announced the company's in-house counsel team was named a winner in the 2014 Industry Awards presented by World Trademark Review (WTR), the world's only independent international magazine dedicated exclusively to trademark law and practice.

The winners were announced on May 13, 2014, during theInternational Trademark Association's annual meeting at the Happy Valley Racecourse in Hong Kong. The event was attended by more than 200 senior in-house counsel from nominated companies and representatives from a number of prominent law firms.

"Trademarks are a key corporate asset and those tasked with protecting and enhancing the value of these critical rights contribute directly to their company's success," saidTrevor Little, editor of WTR. "Yet, too often trademark counsel are unsung corporate heroes and it is vitally important that the work they undertake is recognized. All of this year's shortlisted teams and individuals represent the best in class. This made judging the awards a very difficult process and the winners really do represent best practice in the trademark industry, and deserve special recognition for their exceptional achievements."

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwgeeks/article/Unify-Wins-2014-World-Trademark-Review-Industry-Award-20140611#.U5hhCnKSyIo

IPO to open OPD to public in June

The heads of the world’s top five intellectual property offices confirmed the time frame for opening up the One Portal Dossier to the public during their annual conference held in Busan last week.

The meeting, held for the first time in South Korea in six years, was a follow-up to a conference in June 2013 when intellectual property offices including the Korean Intellectual Property Office agreed to the principle of making the OPD more accessible for the public.

The OPD is a website where patent examiners can freely share patent applications and other relevant information of patent offices in top patent-filing regions ― Korea, Japan, China, the U.S. and Europe.

How Hobby Lobby International Resolved Its Trademark Dispute

Last week, we published a case study on Hobby Lobby International, a Brentwood, Tenn., company that makes and sells remote-controlled products, such as model airplanes and boats, and their accessories. For years, the company has been mistaken for Hobby Lobby Stores, a national art and craft supply chain with more than 600 stores.

In 2012, that brand confusion escalated from a distraction to a potential liability when Hobby Lobby Stores filed a lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act provision requiring employers to provide coverage for all forms of contraception as part of employee health insurance. That case went before the Supreme Court in March, and a ruling is expected by June.

Read more at NYTimes .

Changes to EPO rules in April and November 2014 are good news for applicants

Changes to rules for filing divisional applications (from 1 April 2014)

Since 1 April 2010, it has been possible to file a divisional application based on a pending European patent application only if:

1. the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of 24 months from the first communication from the Examining Division in respect of the earliest application for which a communication has been issued, (note the language “earliest” referring to the ultimate parent application i.e. not an application which is itself a divisional application)

1. or 

1. the divisional application is filed before the expiry of a time limit of 24 months from any communication in which the Examining Division has objected that the earlier application lacks unity, provided it was raising that specific objection for the first time. (Note the language “earlier”, which could refer to an application which is itself a divisional application).

On 1 April 2014, the EPO changed Rule 36 EPC to remove these two restrictions and enable Applicants to file a divisional application based on any pending application.

This rule change is excellent news for Applicants, who will no longer be forced to make a final decision about whether or not to file any divisional applications before the expiry of an arbitrary time limit.  As things stood before 1 April 2014, on expiry of the 24 month time limit, examination of the application may have been ongoing, there might have been unresolved patentability issues and a second examination report might not even have been issued.

Importantly, an effect of this rule change is also that, for those applications for which the 24 month time limit had expired, the window for filing a divisional application has now re-opened.

Changes to rules on unity for PCT applications entering the European Regional Phase (from 1 November 2014)

Our discussion will focus on PCT applications entering the European Regional Phase (“Euro-PCT applications) for which the European Patent Office is not the International Search Authority (ISA) or the Supplementary International Search Authority (SISA), as this is usually the case for Australian Applicants.

If the ISA raises an objection of lack of unity during the international phase, it will invite the Applicant to pay additional search fees in respect of invention(s) other than the first invention.  If additional search fees are paid, the supplementary international search is carried out by the SISA.

When a PCT application enters the European Regional Phase and the ISA was not the EPO, the EPO provides the Applicant with the opportunity to amend the application, within 6 months, before a supplementary search is carried out.

Until 1 November 2014, for a PCT application entering the European Regional Phase, for a claim set which the EPO considers to lack unity, the EPO’s supplementary search will only cover the invention first mentioned in the claims (Rule 164(1) EPC).

Also, until 1 November 2014, for a PCT application entering the European Regional Phase, for which neither the ISA nor the SISA was the EPO, if the Examining Division finds that the claims lack unity, or protection is sought for an invention not covered by the supplementary European search report, it shall invite the Applicant to limit the application to one invention covered by the supplementary European search report (Rule 164(2) EPC) i.e. the Applicant must limit to the only invention searched by the EPO (EPO Guidelines F-V, 13.2 and E-VIII, 4.2).  The EPO will not issue any invitation to pay additional search fee(s) and thus there is no opportunity to have the additional invention(s) searched.

Therefore, under the current rules, for a Euro-PCT application which is deemed by the ISA and the EPO to lack unity, for which

1. the ISA was not the EPO,
2. no additional search fees were paid during the international phase and
3. the invention of greatest commercial interest is not first-mentioned in the PCT claims,

it is very important to amend the claims before the supplementary European search is carried out to mention the invention of greatest commercial interest first.  If the claims are not amended in this way and the EPO agrees with the ISA’s finding of lack of unity, the invention of greatest commercial interest will not be searched when the EPO carries out the supplementary European search.  The EPO will not issue an invitation to pay additional search fees so, in order to protect the subject matter of greatest commercial interest, a divisional application must be filed.  This of course results in extra expense.

Also, currently, for a Euro-PCT application which

1. is deemed to be unified by the ISA (which is not the EPO) but
2. is deemed to lack unity by the EPO on carrying out its supplementary European search (for example, as a result of the identification of a new citation which results in an ex post facto lack of unity),

only the first invention identified by the EPO will be searched.  This means that if the invention of greatest commercial interest is not identified as the first invention by the EPO when the supplementary search is carried out, then the search will not cover the invention of greatest commercial interest.  Again, the EPO will not issue an invitation to pay additional search fees.  Thus, to protect the subject matter of greatest commercial interest, a divisional application needs to be filed, which incurs additional cost.  This situation could be considered to be particularly unfair to Applicants as there may be no advance warning of the lack of unity.

A change to the EPO rules coming into force on 1 November 2014 will change this. From that date, if the EPO considers that the claim set of a PCT application entering the European Regional Phase to lack unity, it will:

1. draw up a partial supplementary search report on those parts of the application which relate to the first invention (or unified group of inventions) first mentioned in the claims,
2. inform the Applicant that, for the supplementary European search report to cover the other inventions, a further search fee must be paid, in respect of each invention involved (within a period of two months) and
3. draw up the supplementary European search report for the parts of the application relating to inventions in respect of which search fees have been paid

This rule change applies to Euro-PCT applications for which the European Supplementary Search is not drawn up before 1 November 2014.

In short, from 1 November 2014 the European supplementary search will continue to relate to the first mentioned invention.  However, additional search(es) will be available for PCT applications entering the European Regional Phase, which the EPO finds to relate to more than one invention (or group of inventions). The Applicant can then amend to any invention searched by the EPO rather than being forced to either limit to the first invention or file a divisional application.

This change to the Rule 164 EPC gives Applicants more flexibility and will reduce costs in certain circumstances (such as those discussed above in the context of the current rules) because it can avoid the need to file a divisional application.

These changes in the rules are good news for Applicants and are being welcomed by European patent attorneys.

Resource: lexology.com