医疗方法的专利保护研究
来源:知识产权学术与实务研究网 作者: 时间:2006-08-06 阅读数:
魏衍亮
国家知识产权局
【摘要】本文以美国为主介绍了西方判例法国家对医疗方法发明的规制。本文认为,与医疗方法发明有关的专利制度的变革要遵循三个基本原则(1)仅仅关注呐喊的人;(2)遵守科斯定理;(3)仅仅关注经验命题。按照这些原则,无论世界贸易组织如何修改Trips第27条3(a),我国都应当删除其专利法第25条之(三)。
一、概述
目前,世界贸易组织(WTO)的Trips理事会正在审议一个修改Trips的议题:即修改Trips第27条3(a), 从而要求WTO成员国对“人体或动物体的诊断、治疗和外科手术方法”提供专利保护。表面上,这是一个简单的立法问题——如果Trips修改了,中国仅仅需要删除《专利法》第25条(三)。 实际上,在为什么,以及怎么样赋予、限制或排除医疗方法 之可享专利性 的问题上,值得研究的问题非常多。下面,我们以美国为主介绍西方判例法国家的专利法对医疗方法发明的规制。
二、美国判例法的变迁
美国成文法从来没有明确赋予、限制或者剥夺医疗方法的可享专利性。长期以来,美国判例法则明确拒绝 给予医疗方法以专利保护。在医疗方法发明上,人们防止私人收益渗漏的主要工具是奖励制度、 自然垄断 与商业秘密。 美国第一个拒绝对医疗方法提供专利保护的案例产生于1862年:在Morton v. New York Eye Infirmary中,设在纽约的联邦巡回法院拒绝给一种医疗方法发明签发专利权。 此案中,专利申请人要求保护“用吸入乙醚蒸汽(vapor)麻醉病人的方法”。 乙醚在当时已经是一种属于在先技术的产品发明。本案中,终审法院的结论是:乙醚的用途发明,即一种麻醉病人的方法发明不具有可享专利性。该院的判决明确指出:“对人体的疗法的(therapeutic)和外科的(surgical)方法不是可享专利性的方法。” 直到1952年,在审查实践中,USPTO都拒绝对指向医疗方法的权利要求 签发专利权。 1952年,USPTO局长声明,专利审查中USPTO一直遵循以下规则:“医生(physicians)针对疾病采用的治疗方法或者方式(modes)不能获得专利权。” 1952年,Becton-Dickinson v. Scherer 案的判决打开了USPTO对医疗方法发明签发专利权的大门。当时,一项发明的总体构思是一种医疗方法。其中一项权利要求指向了机器发明。该机器是一种用压力把药物注入完好皮肤的器械。 法院认为:毫无疑问,单独指向机器的权利要求可以获得专利权; 问题在于,整个发明构思是一个把药物注入皮肤的方法。专利申请书也包含了指向该方法的权利要求。法院认为:“方法 具有可享专利性,即使它们由医疗的(medical)或者外科的方法构成。”因此,它对上述专利申请书中指向医疗方法的权利要求签发了专利权。此案改变了USPTO的审查实践。此后,其开始签发包含医疗方法权利要求的专利,以及纯粹的医疗方法专利。
1994年前,人们获得医疗方法专利的目的主要是为医疗方法发明寻求承认或荣誉,而不是通过执行专利权获得使用费或者其他补偿。 1994年,Pallin v. Singer案中, 一项医疗方法的专利权人——Samuel L. Pallin医生提起了美国历史上第一个医疗方法专利侵权诉讼。此案中,专利权人要求法院通过损害赔偿金对其提供救济。争议的专利是一个纯粹的医疗方法专利:整个权利要求书 (划定专利权保护范围的财产权证书)中没有出现任何药物、器械,更没有出现指向药物、器械等任何物质、组合物或者产品的用途发明的权利要求。其全部29项权利要求 都指向了纯粹的医疗方法发明。尽管如此,本案争议的问题与其他类型的专利侵权案件并无不同。在美国,几乎全部专利侵权案件中,被告都会采用“专利无效抗辩” 和/或“专利不可执行抗辩”。本案中,被告人——Jack A. Singer医生采用了专利无效抗辩。他认为Pallin没有对专利局公开相关的在先技术。 在评估相关的在先技术方面,Singer医生对USPTO审查程序的可靠性提出了质疑。他认为:在医学和外科领域,存在如此之多的自由交换的新方法,以至于专利审查员实际上不可能知道全部必要的、相关的在先技术。凭借现有的审查程序,审查员不可能知道一个医疗方法是否满足新颖性、创造性要求。因此,Singer请求法院认定专利无效。此外,Singer还否认其使用了Pallin的V形切口法(Chevron incision)。Pallin认为:尽管Singer把自己使用的切割方法叫做“蹙额法”(frown),但是其实际上就是Pallin的专利方法。Pallin并不要求禁令救济,而是仅仅希望获得经济补偿。Pallin认为:全美国每年大约100万个眼科手术使用其专利方法。原来,每个手术中,医生缝合切口的费用是17美元。采用Pallin不需缝合的切割方法后,这些费用就被完全消除了。Pallin要求从每个手术中收取3-4美元的专利使用费。[Page]
Pallin医生的诉讼请求遭到了美国医学界的广泛批评。例如:美国医疗协会(American Medical Association)在1994年年会上一致谴责对医疗和外科方法授予专利权。该协会宣布:医疗方法专利会损害医疗职业的诚信性,减少医生的敬业精神,鼓励医生把经济利益看得重于病人的健康。 该协会特别指出:允许医疗方法发明上的专利权人通过禁令、损害赔偿金设置医疗方法的进入障碍,这会对医学界通行的道德准则造成毁灭性的打击。作为对立方,美国律师协会、美国知识产权法律协会、美国生物技术工业协会 等民间组织则要求保护医疗方法专利。它们认为:美国没有任何法律禁止对医疗方法发明签发专利权。法院对Pallin v. Singer案的判决 实际上是对上述两派对立意见的妥协。我们认为:在专利法上,该判决并没有法律依据。
三、美国的立法争论
(一)众议院
1994年前,美国民间对医疗方法是否应当为可享专利性的主题一直存在争论。Pallin v. Singer案把这些争论推到一个高潮,并在美国国会引发了一场变革成文法的论战。
后来,Ganske修改了HR1127,并将其放入HR3814。该法案定义的外科程序(surgical procedure)是:为了治疗或者预防疾病(disease),伤害(injury),不适(illness),异常(disorder)或者残疾(deformity)通过手术方法进行的治疗(treatment),其中,人体组织被机械装置切割、燃烧、熏蒸,被激光或者离子辐射,或者人体的皮肤或者身体空穴被任何外来方式所穿透。 HR3814定义的医疗程序(medical procedure)是:非外科且非诊断的程序,其用于治疗或者预防疾病、伤害、不适、异常或者残疾。其定义的医疗诊断是:识别身体的医疗条件、疾病、异常。从以上定义来看,HR3814规制的医疗方法主要是在人体上实施的医疗方法。而且,HR3814并没有直接排除医疗方法的可享专利性。其615(a)节 规定:USPTO按照美国《专利法》获得的资金(funds) 不能用于对下列技术主题签发专利权:任何被发明或者发现的用于实施上述“外科程序”、“医疗程序”、“医疗诊断”的技术、办法、方法 。 但是,其615(b)节规定了几种例外情况。该节规定:615(a)节的内容不得限制签发下列两类专利:专利权被签发给自身具备可享专利性的机器、制品、组合物,或者它们的改进,而且615(a)节的技术、办法、方法被上述机器、制品、组合物执行或者615(a)节的技术、办法、方法是上述机器、制品、组合物的一个必要组成部分(a necessary component);专利权被签发给组合物的新用途、生物技术方法的新用途。尽管一些众议员反对HR3814在实体法中修改拨款法案(a funding bill),但是其仍然得到了大多数众议员的支持。最终,众议院以295对128票通过该法案。其中,Ganske所属的共和党一方投了195票赞成票。Ganske在国会发言中说:HR3814的内容消除了生物技术工业界的忧虑。他说,按照HR3814,目前可享专利性的全部新药物仍然可以获得专利权;目前可享专利性的用于治疗(treating)与诊断疾病的全部机器、装置仍然可以获得专利权;目前可享专利性的全部生物产品(biological products)仍然可以获得专利权;目前“不具有可享专利性的药物和生物产品”的“可享专利性的全部新用途”仍然可以获得专利权。Ganske还说,615(b)节第二个例外能够保证基因治疗或者类似的生物技术方法获得专利权,无论其是否为615(a)节涵盖的医疗方法。 尽管如此,美国商业部、美国律师协会、美国知识产权法律协会、美国生物技术工业协会、美国知识产权所有者协会、美国药物研究与生产者协会 反对HR3814有关医疗方法之专利性的规定。
按照美国律师协会、美国知识产权法律协会等法律界组织的观点,HR3814几乎是不懂法律的议员们对专利制度的肆意扭曲。首先,即使HR3814生效,专利实体法上,医疗方法的可享专利性仍然没有被剥夺。申请人仍然可以合法地提交医疗方法专利申请,USPTO也必须受理、审查 这些申请。即使USPTO不对医疗方法发明签发专利权,申请人仍然可以寻求司法救济,要求法院强迫USPTO签发该专利权。 事实上,几乎USPTO获得的全部拨款都来自专利申请案的受理费。USPTO收取医疗方法发明上的专利申请费后却拒绝将该费用用于审查、签发医疗方法专利,这种制度安排是非常荒谬的。幸运的是,参议院最终驳回 了HR3814。[Page]
(二)参议院
HR1127垂死之际,参议员Bill Frist(一名心肺移植外科医生) 提起了S1334。 该法案既没有限制或者剥夺医疗方法发明的可享专利性,也没有限制USPTO用政府拨款签发这类专利。 该法案为专业医疗人员(medical professionals)创立了一个侵权责任豁免制度。专业医疗人员在医疗活动中使用受专利保护的医疗方法时,该专利权不能被执行(enforced)。
四、美国专利法对医疗方法发明的规制
1996年9月,上述S2105的内容被HR3610第616节吸收。 众议院在一个特别议程中通过HR3610,并使之回避了众议院各委员会的听证程序。 然后,众议院将HR3610放入HR4278并通过一个特别程序强迫参议院在不能进行任何修改的情况下表决HR4278。
(一)内容
第287节(c) (1) 规定:专业医疗人员从事的医疗活动按照美国专利法第271节(a)或者(b)的规定构成侵权时,美国专利法第281节、 第283节、 第284节、 第285节 的规定不能用于对抗专业医疗人员或者对抗与该医疗活动相关的健康护理机构。第287节(c) (2) (A) 规定:在第287节(c)中,“医疗活动”是在身体上执行医疗的(medical)或者外科的程序(procedure)。但是,其不包括:“违反机器、制品或者组合物上的专利权而使用受专利保护的上述机器、制品或者组合物”;“违反组合物用途发明上的专利权而使用该组合物之受专利保护的用途”;“违反生物技术专利而使用一个方法”。第287节(c) (2) (B)规定:“专业医疗人员”是自然人,其必须拥有州 的许可证,该许可证准许其从事上述医疗活动。“专业医疗人员”也可以是这种自然人,其在上述许可证持有人的指导下从事(acting under the direction of)上述医疗活动。第287节(c) (2) (C)规定:“相关的健康护理机构”是一个组织。上述专业医疗人员与该组织有职业从属关系,并在该组织内从事上述医疗活动。该组织包括,但是不限于疗养院、医院、大学、医疗学校、健康维护组织、集体医疗机构(group medical practice)、医疗门诊部。第287节(c) (2) (D)规定:“职业从属关系”是职员特权、医疗职员资格、雇佣或者合同关系、合伙或者所有者利益、学术职务或者其他从属关系。按照这些关系,上述专业医疗人员代表上述健康护理机构提供上述医疗活动,或者提供与上述健康护理机构有关的上述医疗活动。第287节(c) (2) (E)规定:“身体”是用于医疗研究、教学中的与人的治疗直接相关的人的身体、器官、死尸,或者非人类的动物。第287节(c) (2) (F)规定:“组合物之受专利保护的用途”并不包括指向在身体上实施一个医疗或者外科程序的方法的权利要求。该权利要求引用了对组合物的使用,其中组合物的使用并不能够对该权利要求主张的方法的目标的实现提供直接帮助。
第287节(c) (3)规定:第287节(c)不适用于下列任何人,或者其雇员或代理人的活动(无论该任何人是否为《国内税收法》 第501(c)下的免税组织):该任何人从事机器、制品、组合物的商业化开发、生产、销售、进口、分发,或者提供药品、临床试验服务(不包括在医生办公室 提供的临床试验服务)。其中,上述“活动”与机器、制品、组合物的商业化开发、生产、销售、进口、分发直接相关,或者与提供药品、临床试验服务(不包括在医生办公室提供的临床试验服务)直接相关;并且该“活动”得被《联邦食品、药品和化妆品法》、《公共医疗卫生服务法》或《临床试验改进法》所管辖。第287节(c) (4)规定:第287节(c)不适用于在第287节(c)生效前签发的任何专利。
因此,医疗方法发明的可享专利性与医疗方法专利的可执行性问题上,美国的成文法的内容存在以下九个方面的特点:
(二)特点
1、医疗方法的可享专利性
在美国成文法上,任何医疗方法,无论其是对人体或者动物体的外科或者疗法的治疗方法,还是在人体或者动物体上施行的诊断方法,其可享专利性与机械、化学等其他技术领域的产品或者方法发明的可享专利性并没有任何差别。
2、对动物体的医疗方法
专利法没有限制或者剥夺动物体上之诊断、治疗和外科手术方法发明的可享专利性与相关专利的可执行性。这种情况下,一项适用于人、动物的医疗方法发明仅仅在动物上提出的权利要求能够得到完全的执行;仅仅在人体上提出的权利要求仍然可以获得专利权。
3、对人体的诊断方法
美国专利法第287节(c)没有限制或者剥夺人体医疗方法发明的可享专利性。其仅仅有限制地排除了人体医疗方法专利的可执行性,但是相关的人体医疗方法并不包括人体诊断方法。第287节(c) (2) (A) 规定:在第287节(c)中,“医疗活动”是在身体上执行医疗的或者外科的程序(procedure)。从这个规定,我们看不出医疗活动是否包含诊断活动。但是,第287节(c) (2) (E)规定:“身体”是用于医疗研究、教学中的与人的治疗直接相关的人的身体、器官、死尸,或者非人类的动物。这个规定明确排除了对身体的诊断活动。因此,我们可以推定:美国专利法第287节(c)规制的医疗方法仅仅包括EPCEPC第53条(c)中对人体的外科或者疗法的治疗方法,不包括EPCEPC第53条(c)中对动物体的外科或者疗法的治疗方法,也不包括EPCEPC第53条(c)中在人体或者动物体上施行的诊断方法。因此,对人体的诊断方法发明获得的专利权,不受美国专利法第287节(c)管辖,该专利权能够得到完全的执行。
4、产品发明
按照美国专利法第287节(c)享受专利侵权责任豁免权的“医疗活动”不包括“违反机器、制品或者组合物上的专利权而使用受专利保护的上述机器、制品或者组合物”。例如,一个指向人体外科方法发明的权利要求中,相关技术主题如果并非纯粹的医疗方法发明,而是必须使用受本专利的其他权利要求或者受其他专利保护的机器、制品或者组合物,那么没有任何医疗活动可以使用上述医疗方法发明而同时享受上述豁免权。
5、用途发明
按照美国专利法第287节(c)享受专利侵权责任豁免权的“医疗活动”不包括“违反组合物用途发明上的专利权而使用该组合物之受专利保护的用途”。例如,一个指向人体外科方法发明的权利要求中,相关技术主题如果并非纯粹的医疗方法发明,而是必须使用受本专利的其他权利要求或者受其他专利保护的用途发明中的组合物,那么没有任何医疗活动可以使用上述医疗方法发明而同时享受上述豁免权。
6、生物技术发明
按照美国专利法第287节(c)享受专利侵权责任豁免权的“医疗活动”不包括“违反生物技术专利而使用一个方法”。例如,一个指向人体外科方法发明的权利要求中,相关技术主题如果并非纯粹的医疗方法发明,而是必须使用受本专利的其他权利要求或者受其他专利保护的生物技术发明,那么没有任何医疗活动可以使用上述医疗方法发明而同时享受上述豁免权。[Page]
7、豁免权适用范围的第一种限制
美国专利法第287节(c)并没有把相关的豁免权给予任何人,而是仅仅给了“专业医疗人员”、与该“专业医疗人员”有“职业从属关系”并且与该“专业医疗人员”从事的医疗活动有关联的健康护理机构。其也没有使上述豁免权涵盖“专业医疗人员”的任何活动,而是仅仅使其涵盖了该“专业医疗人员”的医疗活动。
8、豁免权适用范围的第二种限制
由于“专业医疗人员”可能具备不同的社会身份,其医疗活动可能与机器、制品、组合物的商业化开发、生产、销售、进口、分发直接相关,或者与提供药品、临床试验服务(不包括在医生办公室提供的临床试验服务)直接相关。这种情况下,如果该医疗活动同时被《联邦食品、药品和化妆品法》、《公共医疗卫生服务法》或《临床试验改进法》所管辖,那么该医疗活动不能享受美国专利法第287节(c)的专利侵权责任豁免。
9、豁免权适用范围的第三种限制 按照美国专利法第287节(c)(4)的规定,该第287节(c)不适用于其生效前USPTO已经签发的任何专利。因此,按照成文法,此前签发的医疗方法专利仍然可以得到完全的执行。 五、其他判例法国家的专利法对医疗方法发明的规制 (一)大洋州 大洋州的判例法国家主要是新西兰与澳大利亚。新西兰《专利法》(1953)第2节规定了发明 的定义,该法没有明确限制或者排除医疗方法的可享专利性。该《专利法》中发明的定义与已经失效的英国《专利法》(1949)中的内容完全相同。英国的一个判例 在解释英国《专利法》(1949)中发明的定义时说:“人体医疗方法是预防或者治疗人类疾病的方法。其不是一种生产方式(manner of manufacture),不属于专利法上的发明”。这个判例仅仅排除了人类医疗方法的可享专利性,而且认为人类医疗方法不是专利法上的发明。根据该判例,在英国提起的指向人体医疗方法“发明”的专利申请都被拒绝了。上述英国案例后来被新西兰上诉法院的一个案例 所仿效。该案中,全部参审法官一致同意:对人体疾病(disease)或者不适(illness)的治疗方法不能获得专利权;而且对这个政策的改变不在法院的职权范围之内。最近的一个案例 中,新西兰上诉法院认为:医疗方法不能再被认为不能构成发明了。该院还认为:如果医疗方法发明被排除可享专利性,那么这种排除的依据只能是道德或者政策理由。但是,该院没有进一步指出新西兰知识产权局是否得对医疗方法发明签发专利权。目前,新西兰知识产权局仍然拒绝签发医疗方法专利。至今,这种政策还没有在司法实践中受到挑战。 实际上,在包括新西兰在内的大部分西方国家,并不是全部医疗方法发明都不能获得专利。早在20世纪80年代,在欧洲共同体国家,尽管名义上的医疗方法发明不能获得专利保护,但是瑞士型权利要求(Swiss Type Claim)得到了普遍的承认。这种权利要求能够为第二医疗用途(the second medical use)发明提供专利保护。瑞士型权利要求指向下述用途发明:“用已知的化合物(compound)生产药用组合物来治疗(treat)特定医学条件(specific medical conditions)”。瑞士型权利要求最早被瑞士知识产权局1984年的一项行政裁决所确认。现在,新西兰知识产权局也承认瑞士型权利要求。该局的这个政策在一个判例 中得到了新西兰上诉法院的支持。名义上,瑞士型权利要求保护的医疗用途发明并不属于新西兰所谓的医疗方法发明,但是实际上其属于EPCEPC第53条(c)和Trips第27条3 (a)定义的技术主题。 澳大利亚的情况要更为简单。其《专利法》(1990)没有明确限制或者排除医疗方法的可享专利性。该法规定的发明定义与新西兰《专利法》(1953)几乎完全相同。但是,澳大利亚判例法已经明确承认医疗方法的可享专利性。1994年的一个判例 中,澳大利亚联邦法院认为:医疗方法在澳大利亚可以获得专利权。该院的推理是:澳大利亚国会在1990年《专利法》中没有明确排除医疗方法的可享专利性,因此其可以获得专利权。[Page] (二)欧洲 欧洲的判例法国家主要是英国。英国法院一直在试图划定“不可以专利”与“可以专利”的医疗方法的界限,从而对一些医疗方法发明提供专利保护。目前,英国判例法上可以获得专利权的人类治疗方法发明主要有五种:(1)人没有病,即人没有遭受疾病之苦的情况下对人体实施治疗的方法,例如整容外科方法。(2)人为一种状况(condition)所困。该状况是从一个极端到另一个极端的某个统一体的一部分。其中,远离一个武断标准(arbitrary criteria)的变化被视为疾病,例如秃头、不受精、肥胖等。对这类疾病的医疗方法可以获得专利权。(3)某些状况(condition)本身不是疾病。选择性地治疗这样一些状况的方法可以获得专利权。这类方法的例子有避孕方法、减少烟瘾的方法。(4)某些诊断检测方法可以获得专利权。这类方法不引发进一步的外科或者治疗活动。也就是说,这类方法所针对的人体异样并不需要人体治疗活动。这类异样的例子有:皮肤上出现需要被杀灭或者清除的外来细菌。(5)治疗小的身体状况(condition)的方法可以获得专利权。这类方法中,有效成分(active ingredient)被包含在不需处方但可合法出售的产品中(over-the-counter product)。也就是说,这类医疗方法往往是针对小的身体异样的组合物用途发明。实际上,以上五类受专利保护的医疗方法发明的范围并没有确定的边界。法律实践中,法院需要逐案(case by case)进行权衡。 (三)美洲 美洲另一个重要的判例法国家——加拿大采取了和美国、新西兰、澳大利亚、英国不同的法律规制模式。后述四个国家的国内成文法都没有明确限制或者排除任何类型医疗方法的可享专利性。这样,这四个国家的判例法就有机会因应医疗技术与私人诉求的变化,对医疗方法发明提供专利保护了。相反,加拿大和欧洲大陆法国家、日本、中国等世界80多个国家 的专利法相同,都明确禁止对人体或者动物体的诊断的、疗法的、外科的方法授予专利权。例如:大部分WTO成员国、大部分NAFTA 成员国、大部分EPC成员国的国内成文法都明确禁止对人体或者动物体的诊断的、疗法的、外科的方法授予专利权。 在包括加拿大在内的这类国家,法院没有机会逐步扩大对医疗方法发明的专利保护。 六、欧洲专利局 作为EPC成员国,在医疗方法之可享专利性问题上,EPC对英国专利法的影响很大。EPC第53条(c)规定: 对人体或者动物体的外科或者疗法的治疗方法,以及在人体或者动物体上施行的诊断方法,不能获得欧洲专利;本规定不适用于在这些方法中所使用的产品,尤其是物质或者物质组合。上述规定不能排除全部医疗方法的可享专利性。例如:EPC第54条 (5)规定:本条第2款 和第3款 的规定,不应排除第4款 所述的任何物质或者组合物在第53条(c)项所述的任何方法中的任何特定用途的可享专利性,但以这种用途没有包括在现有技术为限。其实,EPC第54条(5)的内容意味着:对于任何物质或者组合物,如果其被用在EPC第53条(c)的医疗方法中,而且在这些医疗方法中产生了用途发明,那么这些用途发明可以获得专利权。 此外, EPC第52条(4)规定:对人体或者动物体的外科或者疗法的治疗方法,以及在人体或者动物体上施行的诊断方法,不应认为属于第1款所称的能在产业中应用的发明。这一规定不适用于在这些方法中所使用的产品,尤其是物质或者物质组合。 4.2 (art 52(4)art 54(5) )对人类或者动物身体的外科的或者疗法的治疗方法,以及在人体或者动物体上施行的诊断方法,不应当视为具有工业实用性的发明。这个规定不适用于任何这些方法中使用的产品,尤其是物质或者组合物。然而,专利可以给予上述方法中使用的外科的,疗法的,或者诊断的装置或者器械。而且,假体(prostheses)或者假肢(artificial limbs)制品,以及为其在人体上采取的措施是可以专利的,因此包括制作病人牙模的生产假牙的方法不被排除可专利性,如果假牙在体外被制造。专利还可以签发给在这些治疗或者诊断方法中使用的新产品,特别是物质或者组合物。然而,如果是已知的物质或者组合物,那么仅仅其在这些方法中的用途可以获得专利权,如果已知的物质或者组合物此前没有公开在人体或者动物身体上的外科的,疗法的或者诊断方法中的用途(第一医疗用途)。该同一物质或者组合物此后不得就任何其他该类用途获得专利权。在已知物质或者组合物上的,为在外科的,疗法的和/或诊断方法中的第一次用途提出的专利权利要求应当采用如下形式:例如“物质或者组合物X”跟随用途例如“用作药物”“用作抗菌手段”“治疗疾病Y”。与在III,4.8中的内容比较,这些权利要求将被视为限于出现在或者打包而被使用在上述用途中的物质或者组合物。第54(5)为总原则规定了一个例外:总原则是产品权利要求仅仅能被获得,为(绝对)新颖的产品。然而,这并不意味着为第一医疗用途的产品权利要求不需要满足其他全部可享专利性要求,特别是创造性要求(See T 128/82, OJ 4/1984,164)。如下形式的权利要求:“用物质或者组合物X治疗疾病Y”(use of substance or composition X for the treatment of disease Y)将被视为被52条(4)明确排除可享专利性的医疗方法,因此不能被接受。 如果一个申请为已知物质第一次公开大量不同的外科、疗法、诊断用途,在一个申请中每个独立权利要求指向物质或者组合物,为上述一个用途,一般可以允许。即,作为一般原则,拒绝不应当就发明的实用性而提起。 如下形式的权利要求:“用物质或者组合物X生产药物为了治疗用途Z”是允许的,或者作为第一个,或者作为后续的(第二个或者further)这类申请,如果该申请是新的而且创造性的(cf. 判决G 05/83, OJ 3/1985,64)。这种情况也适用于如下形式的权利要求:“生产将用于治疗用途Z的一种药物的方法,其特征是物质X被使用”或者其实质等同物。(See T 958/94, OJ 6/1997,241)。如果申请人同时公开多个后续(subsequent)治疗用途,指向这些不同用途的上述类型的权利要求允许在一个申请中,但是仅仅它们形成一个单独的总体发明概念时才行。(第82条)。 4.3 应当指出第52条(4)仅仅排除外科的,疗法的治疗方法,以及诊断方法。因此,其他对活人或者动物的其他治疗方法(例如:治疗绵羊促进生长,提高突变质量,提高羊毛产量)或者其他测量或者记录人或者动物身体特征的方法是可以专利的主题,如果这种方法是技术方法,不是实质性生物特征(see IV, 3.4),而且如果该方法具有工业实用性。后一条件在涉及人的情况下尤其重要。例如:一个申请包含对避孕方法的权利要求,该方法将应用于私人的和个人的领域,不具有工业实用性(see T 74/93, OJ 10/1995, 712)。然而,一个申请如果包含如下权利要求,指向纯粹化妆治疗一个人,通过管理一种化学物,被视为具有工业实用性(see T 144/83, OJ 9/1986, 301)。但是,包含外科或者疗法的化妆治疗不具有可享专利性。[Page] 治疗或者诊断方法如果被排除,必须确实在活的人体或者动物体上实施。如果其在死亡的人体后者动物体上实施,不被第52条(4)排除可享专利性。身体组织或者流体从人或者动物身体上拿下来后,在其上实施的治疗或者诊断方法,不被排除可享专利性,在如下限度内:这些组织或者流体没有返回该相同身体。因此,处置血液为了保存在血液仓库中,或者血样的诊断检测不被排除可享专利性,但是处置血液通过透析而且血液返回同一身体,其将不具有可享专利性。 关于在活的人或者动物体上实施,或者关系到该活的人或者动物体的方法,我们需要记得:第52(4)的发明is only to free from restraint non-commercial and non-industrial medical and veterinary activities. 解释该规定时,应当避免排除超过适当的限度(see Decision G 05/83, OJ 3/1985, 64)。 然而,与52(2)、(3)中的主题相比,后者仅仅排除那样主张的主题,在52(4)中,权利要求并不允许,如果其包括至少一个特征,该特征界定了一个物理活动或者行为,构成一个方法步骤来治疗人或者动物体,通过外科或者疗法,或者一个诊断方法步骤,这些方法步骤在人体或者动物体上实施。 那种情况下,无论权利要求是否包括或者由构成:指向在一个技术客体上实施的技术操作的特征,其与52(4)的应用没有法律关系(see T 820/92, OJ 3/1995, 113 and T 82/93, OJ 5/1996, 274)。 按顺序采取这三个排除: surgery定义了治疗的实质(nature)而不是其目的。因此,例如通过外科为了化装目的
或者为了胚胎移植的治疗方法被排除,以及为了疗法目的而外科治疗方法排除。 therapy意义是:身体疾病或者异常(malfunction)的治疗,涵盖预防性治疗,例如:对特定疾病的免疫(see T 19/86, OJ 1-2/1989, 24)或者驱除瘟疫(plague)(see T 290/86, OJ 8/1992, 414)。疗法目的的方法关于器械的发挥功能,涉及到一个活的人体或者动物体,不排除专利性,如果在关于器械的步骤与器械在身体上的治疗效果之间没有功能关系存在(see T 245/87,OJ 5/1989,171)。 Diagnostic methods:并不包括关于诊断的全部方法。为了从活的人体或者动物体获得信息(数据、物理数量)的方法不被52(4)排除可享专利性,如果获得的信息仅仅提供了中间结果,该中间结果自身并不能使得必要的治疗决定被作出。一般情况下,这种方法包括X射线调查、核磁共振研究、血压测量等(see T 385/86, OJ 8/1988, 308)。 4.4 测量方法总体上应当被视为具有工业实用性的发明,因此可以专利,如果测量适用于发展或者控制其自身具备工业实用性的产品、器械、方法。特别地,为工业实验目的使用试验动物,例如检测工业产品(例如为了确保没有pyrogenetic或者过敏效果)或者现象(例如决定水或者大气污染)可以获得专利权。 4.5 应当指出:susceptibility of industrial application不是一个推翻52(2)的限制的要求。例如:按照52(2)(c),管理方法of stock control不是可享专利性的,尽管其可能被应用到工厂the store of spare parts of a factory. 另一方面,尽管一个发明必须具有工业实用性,而且描述必须表明where this is not obvious the way in which the invention is so susceptible (see II, 4.12),但是权利要求不需要限定于这些工业实用性。 4.6 总体上,如果这不是自言而明的,欧洲专利申请的描述应当表明发明能够在工业中应用的方式。关于基因的序列和部分序列,这个一般要求给定了具体的形式:基因序列或者部分序列的工业实用性必须在专利申请书中公开。仅仅公布一个核苷酸序列而没有表明功能,不是可以专利的发明(EU Dir. 98/44/EC, rec. 23)。在下列案件中,基因序列或者部分序列用来生产蛋白质或者蛋白质片断,需要指出什么蛋白质或者蛋白质片断被生产,而且指出该蛋白质或者蛋白质片断执行的功能。替代地,如果核苷酸序列没有用于生产蛋白质或者蛋白质片断,那么将被指出的功能可以是例如:序列展示了一个特定的transcription promotor activity. EPO的化学和生物化学实践——医学的和疗法的治疗(Medical and Therapeutic Treatments)。 EPO第53条(c)规定:但是问题复杂了,因为EPC第54条 (5)规定:第2款 和第3款 的规定,还不应排除第4款 所述的任何物质或者组合物在第53条(c)项所述的任何方法中的任何特定用途的可享专利性,但以这种用途没有包括在现有技术为限。第54条第5款规定:禁止性规定不排除专利性:用在这种方法中的任何物质或者组合物的用途发明的专利性,即使此前已经知道其他一些用途,只要那些用途不是人体或者动物身体的治疗或者诊断方法。使用化合物限定的用途权利要求或者所谓的瑞士形式的第二医疗用途权利要求,这可以提供一些形式的保护给:已知化合物的新发现医疗用途。 瑞士形式权利要求的确切涵义在侵权案件中还没有完全解决。然而,南非法院面对这样一个权利要求(目前南非法律主要抄袭EPC规定)认为:production of a transdermal nicotine patch was an infringement of a claim of this type. 这种瑞士形式权利要求仅仅适用于新用途的药物。因此,in Second Surgical Use/Codman they were not allowed for other types of medical treatment such as a new use of a known laser surgery system。 技术申诉委员会认为:“一个器械的外科使用不同于治疗性使用,因为前者在使用中没有被消耗,而且能被重复使用在相同或者不同的目的中。药物则不同,其在使用过程中被消耗了,而且在任何用途中只能使用一次。任何新的使用完全对应一个为此目的地整体性生产的扩张。” [Page] 相同地,laser removal of portions of a lenticule that had already been implanted in an eye and attached to the cornea被认为是不可专利的医疗治疗。 此外,the Flow measurement decision noted in footnote 4 was distinguished in Cardiac pacing/Teletronics 其中,结论是:in order to avoid the prohibition on claims to methods of medical treatment it was necessary that if the claim contained a method step (even if the claim was ostensibly directed to an apparatus - in casu a cardiac pacer characterized by certain method steps) it was essential that none of the method steps should be a method for treatment of a human or animal body by way of therapy surgery or diagnosis. 目前的这个案子中,装置翻译的特定信号控制pacer的输出,pacer应用于人体来获得一个治疗效果。这与the Flow measurement case案件形成了对比,后者中,在测量的值与应用的therapeutic treatment之间没有功能关系。 然而,在Blood flow/See-shell 中,一个权利要求包含了动物体中流向特定组织的血流的测量。这个权利要求被允许了,因为权利要求包括了后续的sacrificing of the animal。因此,尽管实施了一个外科手术对动物,但是很明显,治疗不是整体目标。 在Trigonelline/MAI 中,第二医疗用途权利要求被认为适当for the use of an encapsulated extract from fenugreek seed for treatment of hair loss,尽管在先技术表明topical compositions had been used for the same purpose. 这是一种胶囊产品第一次用于这个目的。因此,是一个发明。 类似地,在HCG/Serono 中,下列权利要求被认为可以专利:“用HCG生产a non-depot medicament for use in the treatment by subcutaneous administration of infertility or male sexual disorders.” This holding was despite the fact that HCG (human chorionic gonadotrophin) had been used previously for some of the stated conditions. However, the prior route for administration had been by intramuscular injection. Subcutaneous injection provided a number of advantages, including the fact that no visit to a physician was required to make the injection but the prior art showed prejudice against subcutaneous injections for products of this type since resorption of the drug is slower since subcutaneous tissue is poorly vascularized and comprised of a lipid layer.
Similarly, a second medical use type claim has been held to be the only permissible type of claim for an invention relating to including lanthanum in oral-care preparations for the purpose of removing plaque or staining, the body of the specification making reference to the medical as well as cosmetic advantages of such plaque removal. In this case the prior art had shown the use of lanthanum in toothpaste and similar compositions to inhibit erosion of tooth enamel. Thus, the present invention represented a new medical effect. Since this was of a prophylactic nature, it was inherent in any cosmetic effect achieved, thus precluding the allowability of a claim limited to the cosmetic effects as had been allowed in Appetite Suppressant/DuPont noted in footnote 3 above. It has also been held that a therapeutic treatment of animals did not lose its therapeutic character simply because it had the side effect of increasing meat production from the treated animals. Nor should a treatment be considered as being other than therapeutic simply because it was ancillary to a treatment for a different purpose (contraception). A different approach to the question of contraception was followed in Contraceptive method/British Technology Group. In this case the claim was a use claim to the use of a specified compound as a contraceptive by application to the cervix of a female. After agreeing that contraception is not a method of therapy for which patent protection is barred, the Board nevertheless maintained the rejection of the claim on the ground that the acts specified in the claim were of a private nature and so the invention as claimed was incapable of industrial application. The fact that acts of contributory infringement would clearly be of industrial applicability was felt to be irrelevant; some act of direct infringement had to be industrially applicable for patentability.[Page] Abstract 1. Chemical compound composed of thenoyl peroxide with the formula see diagramm : EP0004810,P4,F3 for its use in a method of therapeutic treatment for the human or animal body. Claims Revendications 1) Application a titre de médicament, notamment de médica ment destine au traitement de l'acné, du peroxyde de thénoyle de formule 2) Compositions pharmaceutiques caractérisées en ce qu'elles renferment, a titre de principe actif, le peroxyde de thénoyle. 3) Compositions selon la revendication 2, caractérisées en ce qu'elles renferment de 2 à 20 % de principe actif. 4) Application à titre de produit cosmetique du peroxyde de thénoyle. 5) Compositions cosmétiques, caractérisées en ce qu'elles renferment le peroxyde de thénoyle. 6) Compositions selon la revendication 5, caractérisées en ce qu'elles renferment de 0,2 à 20 do de peroxyde de thénoyle. 此案中, 当产品被表明有多个特征时,保护权利可以给予多个用途。一个产品在人类或者动物身体上的医疗方法中的第一个用途,和它的美容用途可以因此在一个和相同的专利申请中被主张。产品的美容作用如果同时具备医疗作用并不落入EPC第53条(C)的范围,因此可以专利。 该案件是:欧洲专利申请号 79 400 198.2,在 权利要求1是:Medication characterised in that it is composed of thenoyl peroxide with the formula SCO-O-O-CO S 权利要求7是:Pharmaceutical compositions characterised in that they contain thenoyl peroxide as active principle. 权利要求9是:Use of thenoyl peroxide as a cosmetic product. 权利要求10是:Cosmetic compositions, characterised in that they contain thenoyl peroxide. 拒绝理由是:权利要求1、7违反EPC第54(5)。审查部认为:为了满足该条要求,权利要求必须限定于描述的therapeutic indication。申请人反对,认为:EPC54(5)没有明确限定药物(medication)范围。[Page] IV. In its interlocutory communications the Board of Appeal proposed certain changes in the wording of the medical claims, principally to bring them into line with Article 54(5). The new wording was accepted by the appellants. The Board also raised the question of Claim 8's admissibility as it was finally worded, it being identical to Claim 9 of the set of claims refused. Claim 9 had not been contested by the first instance, but appeared to the Board to relate to a method of treatment by therapy (Article 52(4) EPC) since it was intended to treat acne, which is a disease. 申请人在 1. Chemical compound composed of thenoyl peroxide with the formula SCO-O-O-CO S for its use in a method of therapeutic treatment for the human or animal body. 2. Chemical compound according to Claim 1 for its antibacterial use. 3. Chemical compound according to Claim 1 for its antifungal use. 4. Chemical compound according to Claim 1 for its comedolytic use.
5. Chemical compound according to Claim 1 for its use in the treatment of acne. 6. Pharmaceutical compositions characterised in that they contain, as active principle, thenoyl peroxide, as well as an inert pharmaceutical excipient. 7. Compositions according to Claim 6, characterised in that they contain from 2 to 20% of active principle. 8. Use as a cosmetic product of thenoyl peroxide. 9. Cosmetic compositions, characterised in that they contain thenoyl peroxide. 10. Compositions according to Claim 9, characterised in that they contain from 0.2 to 20% of thenoyl peroxide. 判决理由: 1. The appeal complies with Articles 106 to 108 and Rule 64 EPC and is therefore admissible. 2. The claims' subject-matter does not extend beyond the content of the application as filed. The use of thenoyl peroxide as an active pharmacological substance and as a medication according to Claims 1 to 5 was disclosed in the application as filed (see page 1, lines 15 to 20; page 3, line 34; page 4, line 2 and Claim 1). Claims 6 and 7 are based on the original Claims 2 and 3 and on page 2, lines 11 to 22, of the description. Claims 8 to 10 are the original Claims 4 to 6. 3. The applicants have submitted to the specialist world the new teaching that thenoyl peroxide can be used as a therapeutic agent, particularly as a medication for treating acne. Thenoyl peroxide, the active principle claimed, has already been described in the prior art (see Monatshefte, Volume 80 (1949), page 739). However, its use in any method according to Article 52(4) EPC is not part of the state of the art and is considered new under Article 54(5) EPC. [Page] 4. Benzoyl peroxide, a product similar in structure to thenoyl peroxide, is already used for the treatment of acne in human beings, as has been acknowledged by the applicants (see original description, page 3, lines 1 to 13), citing J. Pharm. Sci,. Volume 66 (1977), page 718. Taking account of the closest prior art, the applicants set themselves the problem of finding not only a better medication than benzoyl peroxide for the treatment of acne, but also a product whose antibacterial, antifungal and comedolytic action permitted therapeutic and cosmetic uses. The applicants found in thenoyl peroxide a solution to this problem as set out in Claims 1 to 10. Having taken into consideration the article in Monatshefte, Volume 80 (1949), page 739, the Board sees no reason to question the novelty of the compositions nor of Claims 1 to 10. As regards inventive step, the Board accepts that the two closest prior art documents do not suggest the therapeutic and cosmetic properties shown by the applicants. The document relating to the treatment of acne in no way prompts the idea of looking for such properties in structurally similar products, not even a product like thenoyl peroxide, which has long been known. Moreover, comparative studies presented in the description are conclusive in showing that the solution proposed matches the problem posed. Consequently, in the absence of any other document pointing in this direction, the Board accepts, as did the Examining Division, that the subject-matter of Claims 1 to 10 involves an inventive step. 5. The reasons given by the Examining Division for refusing the application relate to Claims 1 and 6 only (corresponding to the refused Claims 1 and 7). It remains to be established for the purposes of the appeal whether the wording of Claims 1 and 6 indicating an extended use is admissible under Article 54(5) EPC. 5.2 The same conclusion applies to the case in suit. As in the other case, the use as a medication of the product claimed has been disclosed to a large extent from the outset in the description (see page 1, line 15 to page 2, line 26, of the description as filed). Claims 1 to 6 are therefore admissible. 6. Since the Board itself questioned the admissibility of Claim 8, it remains to be examined whether that claim may be accepted. In this context it also has to be established whether a cosmetic indication is distinct from a medical indication. Such a distinction is clearly set out in the description as filed (see page 2, lines 27 to 30). 6.1 It is clear from reading the description that the anti- bacterial and comedolytic activities that thenoyl peroxide has been shown to have are essential for the treatment of acne and are used in the application only in relation to a local remedy (description, page 6). However, the application shows that pharmaceutical and cosmetic preparations can have very similar, if not identical, forms (see description as filed, page 2, line 1 to page 3, line 6). Consequently, the cosmetic treatment according to the application may also incidentally involve a medical treatment. 6.2 However, the pharmacological study of thenoyl peroxide presented in the description includes a study of the comedolytic activity. This comedolytic study concentrates on the ratio between the orifice of comedones and their large diameter before and after applying thenoyl peroxide. It shows their transformation into open comedones, allowing the horny comedo matter to extrude (description as filed, page 5, lines 10 to 13). This operation assists in skin cleansing. The Board regards this activity of thenoyl peroxide as one clearly belonging to the field of non- medical body hygiene rather than that of therapy. The benefits gained by this activity in a cosmetic indication should not therefore be considered as being excluded from patentability under Article 52(4) EPC.
6.3 When considering the exclusions from patentability under Article 52(4) EPC the wording of Claim 8 is important. Having discovered for the first time the surprising properties of a chemical product already known in the state of the art and having shown those properties in various uses, the applicant has the right to have those uses protected. In the present case the uses are presented in the description as two methods: a method of medical treatment and a method of non-medical treatment. Under Article 52(4) a method of medical treatment is not patentable but a product for use in that method certainly is. Claims 1 to 7 have been worded accordingly. The method of non-medical treatment is one falling within the general field of patentable inventions. There can be no objection to the patentability of either use or method claims in general. The Enlarged Board of Appeal has held that it is a matter of preference whether any activity is claimed as a method of carrying out the activity or as the use of a thing for a stated purpose. There is no difference of substance (Gr 05/83, Second medical indication/EISAI, OJ 3/1985, page 64 et seq., points 11 and 12 of the Reasons for the Decision). The applicants have chosen the phrase "use as a cosmetic product of thenoyl peroxide". The Board considers that this form of claim is acceptable in the case in suit. In the Board's opinion the question of industrial application does not arise, since professional use of the invention in a beauty parlour is an industrial application within the meaning of Article 57 EPC. 6.4 The Board considers it useful to add the following remark concerning the wording of Claim 8: To avoid any possible conflict with the provisions of Article 52(4) EPC in a use or indication claim, it would have been possible to envisage the exclusion of the non-patentable invention within the meaning of that article by means of a disclaimer. In the present case the Board considers use of the term "cosmetic" to be sufficiently precise. Without the necessity of going into the provisions of national law in the various countries, which in any case largely point in the same direction (see point V), the term "cosmetic" is used adjectivally for a non-medical substance intended for use on the skin etc. (cf. Grand dictionnaire encyclopédique Larousse). The standard English- and German-language reference works support that definition. 7. In the circumstances there is no need to examine the alternative request maintained by the appellant. [Page] ORDER For these reasons, it is decided that 1. The decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office dated 15 October 1982 is set aside. 2. The case is referred back to the first instance with the order that a European patent be granted on the basis of the following documents: Description, pages 3 to 6 as filed, page 1 received on 3 October 1983 page 2 received on 4 May 1984 Claims1 to 10 received on 20 April 1985. 技术申诉委员会的一些判决:关于医疗方法专利性。 T469/94 A European patent application was filed relating to a method of reducing the perception of fatigue for a person who has participated in, or is about to participate in, major sport. The method involved administering choline. Choline was known for the treatment of muscular diseases. The Board considered that muscular fatigue was not a disease, but was a natural state for a healthy person. As such, fatigue was not comparable with the pathological state typical of a disease or injury. Thus, the Board considered that such treatment of fatigue was not a therapeutic method and hence not excluded from patentability. Also, the Board considered whether the therapeutic and non-therapeutic effects were distinguishable from each other. The Board decided that the effects were distinguishable since the methods would be applied to different groups of patients. Therefore, the methods were distinguishable from each other. Comment:This decision confirms that treatment of healthy humans or animals, for reasons other than prophylactic, are patentable. Also the fact that the treatment can have therapeutic effects is not a bar to patentability where the treatment is not applied to a sick patient. T655/92:第二医疗用途权利要求。诊断方法。本案关系到This case relates to a contrast medium for use in a method of in vivo nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of a patient. The contrast medium was known as such. Also a first medical use of the contrast medium was known. The applicant therefore filed a claim in the “second medical use” format. The EPO allows so-called “first medical use” claims and “second medical use” claims. A first medical use claim (cf. Art. 54(5)) is a claim to ’substance X for use in medical method Z’. Article 54(5) expressly limits “first medical use” claims to substances or compositions for use in a medical method which is excluded from patentability by virtue of Article 52(4). A second medical use claim is used where there is already a known medical use. The claim is set out as ’the use of substance X in the manufacture of substance Y for use in medical method Z’. The Board considered that the same considerations should apply to such “second medical use” claims. The Board then went on to investigate whether the use of a contrast medium in NMR imaging is indeed subject-matter excluded from patentability as a diagnostic method. The Board came to the conclusion that such a method was a diagnostic method excluded from patentability. The Board therefore allowed the inclusion of “second medical use” claims. 评论:First and second medical use claims derive their novelty from the specified intended use. It is however important to first establish that a direct claim to their use would be excluded from patentability as a medical or diagnostic method. If this is the case then claims in the first or second medical use format can be included in an application.
黑白区域少,灰色区域多。 加拿大公司使用创造性的专利战略,允许投资者保护似乎不可专利的发明。它们还可以获得美国专利来利用美国更自由得美国专利法。美国专利法保护更多更宽的保护。一些领域里,发明人京城不知道专利保护的边界。 在加拿大,医疗方法阿不能得到专利。然而,这种发明可以北保护,通过制作通用专利权利要求为了使用一个药物或者装置,而且忽略执行医疗程序或者管理药物的步骤。 这种抓你并不试图包含技术人员的技巧。该技巧是医疗方法的构成部分。一个新药物或者医疗器械的专利也保护它,因为任何医疗使用该药物或者器械将侵犯专利权。在美国,医疗方法专利可以。无论方法是否包含外科,医疗器械,或者管理药物。 A. The Patents The three patents at issue, all of which are assigned to Institut Pasteur, are directed to structural components of and methods of detecting the presence of two types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV"), HIV-1 and the less common HIV-2. Infection with either type of HIV leads to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ("AIDS"), and thus assays that can detect HIV-1 and HIV-2 are crucial to diagnosing, treating, and arresting the spread of AIDS. The '861 patent generally pertains to certain HIV-1 peptides (amino acid sequences which comprise part of the structure of the virus) and methods for detecting the presence of HIV-1. The '391 patent is directed to diagnostic assays for detecting the presence of HIV-2, and the '496 patent claims a number of structural peptides of HIV-2. The issues central to this appeal focus on the interpretation of licensing agreements that govern these patents, not on the claims or any other aspect of the patents themselves. 5,217,861 Assignee: Institut Pasteur (FR) 1. An in vitro diagnostic method for the detection of the presence or absence of antibodies which bind to antigens of human retrovirus indicative of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or of Lymphadenopathy Associated Syndrome (LAS), which method comprises contacting isolated p18 protein of said retrovirus with a biological fluid for a time and under conditions sufficient for the protein and antibodies in the biological fluid to form a complex; and detecting the formation of the complex. [Page] 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the detecting step further comprises measuring the formation of said complex. 3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the biological fluid is human serum. 4. Structural protein of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which is p18 protein of said virus, and said protein is in isolated form. 5. A labeled polypeptide, wherein the polypeptide is capable of being immunologically recognized by serum of a patient afflicted with Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS) or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); the polypeptide is p18 protein of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in isolated form; and said label is an immunoassay label selected from the group consisting of a radioactive label, an enzyme label, and a fluorescent label. 6. An in vitro diagnostic method for the detection of the presence or absence of antibodies which bind to antigens of human retrovirus indicative of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or of Lymphadenopathy Associated Syndrome (pre-AIDS), which method comprises contacting an isolated antigen mixture comprising (A) p18 protein of said retrovirus, and (B) p25 protein of said retrovirus, with a biological fluid, for a time and under conditions sufficient for the antigen and antibody in the biological fluid to form an antigen-antibody complex; and detecting the formation of the complex. 7. An isolated mixture of structural proteins of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), wherein the proteins are p18 and p25 proteins. 8. An in vitro diagnostic method for the detection of the presence or absence of antibodies which bind to antigens of human retrovirus indicative of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or of Lymphadenopathy Associated Syndrome (LAS), which method comprises
contacting p12 protein of said retrovirus with a biological fluid for a time and under conditions sufficient for the protein and antibodies in the biological fluid to form a complex; and detecting the formation of the complex. 9. Structural protein of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which is p12 protein of said virus, and said protein is in isolated form. 10. A labeled polypeptide, wherein the polypeptide is capable of being immunologically recognized by antibodies in the serum of a patient afflicted with Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS) or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); the polypeptide is p12 protein of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in isolated form; and said label is an immunoassay label selected from the group consisting of a radioactive label, an enzyme label, and a fluorescent label. [Page] 11. A mixture of structural proteins of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), wherein the proteins are selected from the group consisting of p12, p18, and p25 proteins, and the mixture is in isolated form. 5,055,391 Assignee: Institut Pasteur (Paris, FR) What is claimed is: 1. An in vitro diagnostic method for the detection of the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of a human retrovirus, which is Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2), indicative of Lymphadenopathy, wherein said antigens comprise protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, peptide antigen, or a mixture thereof of HIV-2, and wherein said method comprises contacting antigens of HIV-2 with a biological fluid for a time and under conditions sufficient for the antigens and antibodies in the biological fluid to form antigen-antibody complexes, and detecting the formation of the complexes. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the biological fluid is human serum. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the biological fluid is from a patient with pre-AIDS. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the human retrovirus is a human retroviral variant of LAV-2 which is cytopathic for human lymphocytes. 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the biological fluid is simultaneously contacted with a mixture of antigens comprising protein, glycoprotein, and peptides of Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus Type 1 (LAV-1) capable of binding to human antibodies, in an amount sufficient to detect the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of LAV-1. [Page] 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise a lysate of HIV-2 and the antigens are capable of being immunologically recognized by serum of a patient afflicted with Lymphadenapathy Syndrome (LAS), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), or AIDS Related Complex (ARC). 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise at least one protein or glycoprotein of HIV-2 selected from the group consisting of p16, p26, gp 36, and gp 130-140. 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins of HIV-2. 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise gp 36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp 36 glycoprotein and gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins and gp 130-140 glycoproteins of HIV-2. 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the biological fluid is also contacted with antigens indicative of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1), which are capable of binding to human antibodies, in an amount sufficient to detect the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of HIV-1, wherein said antigens comprise protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, peptide antigen, or a mixture thereof indicative of HIV-1. 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the antigens of HIV-1 are selected from the group consisting of p18, p25, gp 41-43, gp 110/120, and mixtures thereof, of HIV-1. 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the antigens of HIV-1 comprise p25 and gp 41 of HIV-1. 17. The method of claim 14, wherein the antigens are isolated from lysates of HIV-1 and HIV-2 by affinity chromatography and fixed to a water-insoluble support. 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens are fixed to a water-insoluble support. 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens are fixed to water-insoluble spheres. 20. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens are fixed to water-insoluble agarose spheres. 21. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens are fixed to wells of a titration microplate. 22. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigens do not immunologically cross-react with p19 protein or p24 protein of human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-I) or of human T-Lymphotropic virus type 2 (HTLV-II). 23. A diagnostic kit for the detection of the presence or absence of human antibodies which bond to antigens of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) indicative of lymphadenopathy, wherein said antigens comprise protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, peptide antigen, or a mixture thereof, and wherein said kit comprises antigens of HIV-2, a reagent to detect antigen-antibody complexes that comprise said antigens, a biological reference material lacking antibodies that immunologically bind with said antigens,a comparison sample comprising antibodies of HIV-2, and wherein said antigens, reagent, and biological reference material are present in an amount sufficient to perform said detection. [Page] 24. The diagnostic kit of claim 23, wherein said immune complexes are detected by employing immunological labels selected from the group consisting of radioisotopes, enzymes, and fluorescent labels. 25. The diagnostic kit of claim 23, wherein said kit also contains antigens of Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus Type 1 (LAV-1), wherein said antigens comprise a mixture of protein, glycoprotein, and peptides of Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus Type 1 (LAV-1) capable of binding to human antibodies, in an amount sufficient to detect the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of LAV-1. 26. An in vitro diagnostic method for the detection of the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens indicative of a human retrovirus, which is Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2), wherein said antigens comprise protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, peptide antigen, or a mixture thereof indicative of HIV-2, and wherein said method comprises contacting said antigens with a biological fluid for a time and under conditions sufficient for the antigens and antibodies in the biological fluid to form an antigen-antibody complex, wherein said antigens are substantially free of viral particles, and detecting the formation of the complex. 27. The method of claim 26, wherein the biological fluid is human serum. 28. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is a peptide. 29. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is a glycoprotein. 30. The method of claim 26, wherein said antigen is labeled with a immunoassay label selected form the group consisting of radioisotopes, enzymes, and fluorescent labels. 31. The method of claim 26, wherein the human retrovirus is LAV-2. 32. The method of claim 21, wherein the human retrovirus is a human retroviral variant of LAV-2 which is cytopathic for human lymphocytes. 33. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens are derived from a retrovirus having the characteristics of the virus deposited under culture collection accession number C.N.C.M. No. I-502. 34. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens are derived from a retrovirus having the characteristics of the virus deposited under culture collection accession number C.N.C.M. No. I-532. 35. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise an extract of HIV-2, and the antigens are capable of being immunologically recognized by sera of a patient afflicted with Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), or AIDS Related Complex (ARC). 36. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is an external envelope protein of HIV-2. 37. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is a transmembrane protein. 38. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is a major core protein of HIV-2. 39. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigen is a core protein of HIV-2, other than a major core protein of HIV-2. 40. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise at least one protein or glycoprotein of HIV-2 selected from the group consisting of p16, p26, gp 36, and gp 130-140. 41. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins of HIV-2. 42. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise gp 36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 43. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 44. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 45. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp 36 glycoprotein and gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 46. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins and gp 130-140 glycoproteins of HIV-2. 47. The method of claim 26, wherein the biological fluid is also contacted with antigens indicative of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1), which are capable of binding to human antibodies, in an amount sufficient to detect the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of HIV-1. [Page] 48. The method of claim 47, wherein the antigens of HIV-1 are selected from the group consisting of p18, p25, gp 41-43, gp 110/120, and mixtures thereof, of HIV-1. 49. The method of claim 26, wherein the antigens are from disrupted whole virus particles present in the lysate or isolated therefrom. 50. A diagnostic kit for the detection of the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens indicative of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2), wherein said antigens comprise protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, peptide antigen, or a mixture thereof indicative of HIV-2, and wherein said kit comprises said antigens, a reagent to detect antigen-antibody complexes that comprise said antigens, a biological reference material lacking antibodies that immunologically bind with said antigens, a comparison sample comprising antibodies of HIV-2, and wherein said antigens, reagent, and biological reference material are present in an amount sufficient to perform said detection. 51. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is a peptide. 52. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is a glycoprotein. 53. The kit of claim 50, wherein said antigen is labeled with an immunoassay label selected from the group consisting of radioisotopes, enzymes, and fluorescent labels. 54. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise an extract or a lysate of HIV-2, and the antigens are capable of being immunologically recognized by sera of a patient afflicted with Lymphadenopathy Syndrome (LAS), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), or AIDS Related Complex (ARC). 55. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is an external envelope protein of HIV-2. 56. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is a transmembrane protein. 57. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is a major core protein of HIV-2. 58. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigen is a core protein of HIV-2, other than a major core protein of HIV-2. 59. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise at least one protein or glycoprotein of HIV-2 selected from the group consisting of p16, p26, gp 36, and gp 130-140. 60. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins of HIV-2. [Page] 61. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise gp 36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 62. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 63. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp 36 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 64. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise p26 protein and gp 36 glycoprotein and gp 130-140 glycoprotein of HIV-2. 65. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens comprise p16 and p26 proteins and gp 130-140 glycoproteins of HIV-2. 66. The kit of claim 50, wherein said kit also comprises antigens indicative of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1), which are capable of binding to human antibodies, in an amount sufficient to detect the presence or absence of human antibodies which bind to antigens of HIV-1, wherein said antigens comprise a mixture of protein antigen, glycoprotein antigen, and peptide antigen indicative of HIV-1. 67. The kit of claim 66, wherein the antigens of HIV-1 are selected from the group consisting of p18, p25, gp 41-43, gp 110/120, and mixtures thereof, of HIV-1. 68. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens are fixed to a water-insoluble support. 69. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens are fixed to water-insoluble spheres. 70. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens are fixed to water-insoluble agarose spheres. 71. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens are fixed to wells of a titration microplate. 72. The kit of claim 66, wherein the antigens are isolated from lysates of HIV-1 and HIV-2 by affinity chromatography and fixed to a water-insoluble support. 73. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens do not immunologically cross-react with p19 protein or p24 protein of human T-lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-I) or of human T-lymphotropic virus type 2 (HTLV-II). 74. The kit of claim 50, wherein the antigens are from disrupted whole virus particles present in the lysate or isolated therefrom. 5,051,496 What is claimed is: 1. A peptide selecdted from the group consisting of env1, env2, env3, env4, env5, env6, env7, env8, env9, env10, env11 and gag1 of HIV-2, wherein said peptide comprises an amino acid sequence that is encoded by a DNA fragment comprising a nucleotide sequence as follows: ##STR3## 2. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env1. 3. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env2. 4. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env3. 5. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env4. [Page] 6. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env5. 7. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env6. 8. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env7. 9. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env8. 10. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env9. 11. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env10. 12. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is env11.
13. The peptide as claimed in claim 1, which is gag1. http://www.cefic.be/position/Sec/pp_sec20.htm European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC). THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBLE MILLENNIUM ROUND & TRIPS April 1999 Compulsory Licensing for Public Health Needs The TRIPS Agenda at the WTO afterThe Doha Declaration on Public Health Frederick M. Abbott February 2002 Developing Members may also wish to place on the agenda of the TRIPS Council a proposal to amend Article 27:3(a) of the TRIPS Agreement to allow exceptions from patent subject matter protection regarding public health related inventions. Developing Members should pursue an amendment of Article 8:1 of the TRIPS Agreement to make safeguards applicable to intellectual property rights consistent with safeguards applicable to goods and services. Interim waivers regarding Article 31(f), Article 30 and the last clause of Article 8:1 might precede amendment. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 20 November 2001 Ministerial declaration Adopted on 14 November 2001 http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres02_e/pr301_e.htm WTO NEWS: 2002 PRESS RELEASES Press/301 28 June 2002 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: TRIPS AND PUBLIC HEALTH Council approves LDC decision with additional waiver The WTO council responsible for intellectual property, on 27 June 2002, approved a decision extending until 2016 the transition period during which least-developed countries (LDCs) do not have to provide patent protection for pharmaceuticals. The Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) also approved a waiver that would exempt least-developed countries from having to provide exclusive marketing rights for any new drugs in the period when they do not provide patent protection. The waiver is to be submitted to the WTO General Council for approval on 8 July 2002. Both decisions are part of WTO members’ ongoing efforts to ensure that intellectual property protection supports and does not obstruct poorer countries’ need to tackle serious public health problems. “I am pleased that WTO members have acted promptly to implement this important part of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health, and have seen fit to go beyond the strict reading of that declaration by also approving a draft waiver on exclusive marketing rights,” said WTO Director-General Mike Moore. (Texts of the decision and waiver follow this introduction.) The TRIPS Council’s decision formalizes part of paragraph 7 of the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which WTO ministers adopted on 14 November 2001 at their conference in The relevant part of paragraph 7 of the Doha declaration says: “We … agree that the least-developed country members will not be obliged, with respect to pharmaceutical products, to implement or apply Sections 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement or to enforce rights provided for under these Sections until 1 January 2016, without prejudice to the right of least-developed country members to seek other extensions of the transition periods as provided for in Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to take the necessary action to give effect to this pursuant to Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement”. This follows from the ministerial declaration’s opening statements: “We recognize the gravity of the public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. “We stress the need for the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) to be part of the wider national and international action to address these problems. “We recognize that intellectual property protection is important for the development of new medicines. We also recognize the concerns about its effects on prices”. The TRIPS Agreement allows developing countries extra periods to delay providing patent protection for pharmaceuticals. But countries making use of the extra period still have to allow inventors to submit patent applications during the period (Article 70.8, sometimes called the “mailbox” provision). If a country’s health authority then approves a new drug for sale, the patent applicant has to be given exclusive marketing rights for five years even though there is no patent (Art.70.9). The waiver exempts least developed countries from having to give these exclusive marketing rights. More information can be found on the WTO website: The text of the ministerial declaration An explanation The WTO’s TRIPS (intellectual property) Council has started work on a list of issues that ministers assigned to it at the November 2001 Ministerial Conference in The TRIPS Council chairperson, Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku of http://lists.essential.org/pharm-policy/msg00305.html Kristin Dawksin/IATP sign-on letter regarding WTO/TRIPS patent exceptions (1) amend Article 27.3(b) to expand the list of exceptions to patentability to include living organisms and their parts as well as the list of essential drugs published by the World Health Organization; [Page]
七、我国 根据专利法第二十五条的规定,下列各项不授予专利权: (3) 疾病的诊断和治疗方法; 第一章 不授予专利权的申请 3.3 疾病的诊断和治疗方法 疾病的诊断和治疗方法是指以有生命的人体或者动物体为直接实施对象,进行识别、确定或消除病因或病灶的过程。 出于人道主义的考虑和社会伦理的原因,医生在诊断和治疗过程中应当有选择各种方法和条件的自由。另外,这类方法直接以有生命的人体或动物体为实施对象,无法在产业上利用,不属于专利法意义上的发明创造。因此疾病的诊断和治疗方法不能被授予专利权。 但是,用于实施疾病诊断和治疗方法的仪器或装置,以及在疾病诊断和治疗方法中使用的物质或材料属于可被授予专利权的客体。 诊断方法,是指为识别、研究和确定有生命的人体或动物体病因或病灶状态的全过程。 一项与疾病诊断有关的方法只有同时满足以下三个条件,才属于不授予专利权的诊断方法: (1) 以有生命的人体或动物体为对象; (2) 以获得疾病诊断结果为直接目的; (3) 包括诊断全过程。 审查员在判断一项与疾病诊断有关的方法发明是否真正属于疾病的诊断方法时,不仅应当考虑该方法是否在表述形式上包含了上述条件的全部内容,而且应当分析该发明实质上是否满足上述条件。比如,一项发明仅仅涉及从人体获取生理参数的方法,从表述形式上看,并不满足上述三个条件,但是如果根据现有技术中的医学知识,只要知晓所说的生理参数,就能直接获得疾病的诊断结果,则该发明实质上也是一种诊断方法,仍然不能被授予专利权。 按照上述规则,以下方法是不能被授予专利权的例子: 诊脉法、足诊法、X光诊断法、超声诊断法、胃肠造影诊断法、内窥镜诊断法、同位素示踪诊断法、红外光无损诊断法。 并非所有与诊断有关的发明方法都不给予专利保护。有些发明方法看起来与疾病诊断有关,或者终极目的仍然是诊断疾病,但是它们的直接目的不是诊断疾病,则不能依据专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项的规定拒绝授予其专利权,以下几类发明方法就属于这种情况: (1) 直接目的不是获得诊断结果,而只是从活的人体或动物体获取作为中间结果的信息和/或处理信息(形体参数、生理参数或其他参数)的方法(对此需要说明的是,只有当根据现有技术中的医学知识从所获得的信息本身不能够直接得出疾病的诊断结果时,这些信息才能被认为是中间结果); (2) 对已经脱离人体或动物体的组织、体液或排泄物进行处理或检测的方法; (3) 在已经死亡的人体或动物体上实施的病理解剖方法。 治疗方法,是指为使有生命的人体或者动物体恢复或获得健康或减少痛苦,进行阻断、缓解或者消除病因或病灶的过程。 治疗方法包括以治疗为目的或者具有治疗性质的各种方法。预防疾病或者免疫的方法视为治疗方法。 对于既可能包含治疗目的,又可能包含非治疗目的的方法,应当明确说明该方法用于“非治疗目的”,否则不能被授予专利权。 不能被授予专利权的治疗方法指以治疗或预防疾病为直接目的、在有生命的人体或动物体上实施的方法。 以下各项中列举的方法都属于或者应当视为不能被授予专利权的治疗方法: (1) 外科手术治疗方法、药物治疗方法、心理疗法; (2) 以治疗为目的的针灸、麻醉、推拿、按摩、刮痧、气功、催眠、药浴、空气浴、阳光浴、森林浴和护理方法; (3) 以治疗为目的利用电、磁、声、光、热等种类的辐射刺激或照射人体或者动物体的方法; (4) 以治疗为目的采用涂覆、冷冻、透热等方式的治疗方法; (5) 为预防疾病而实施的各种免疫方法; (6) 为实施外科手术治疗方法和药物治疗方法采用的辅助方法,如返回同 一主体的器官或组织的处理方法、血液透析方法、麻醉深度监控方法、药物内服方法、药物注射方法、药物外敷方法等; (7) 以治疗为目的的受孕、避孕、增加精子数量、体外受精、胚胎转移等方法; (8) 以治疗为目的的整容、肢体拉伸、减肥、增高方法; (9) 处置人体或动物体伤口的方法,如伤口消毒方法、包扎方法; (10)以治疗为目的的其他方法,如人工呼吸方法、输氧方法。 需要指出的是,虽然使用药物治疗疾病的方法是不能被授予专利权的,但是,药物本身是可以被授予专利权的。有关物质的医药用途的专利申请的审查,参见本部分第十章第 如果一种以人体或者动物体为实施对象的方法本身的目的不是治疗,或者其直接目的不是治疗,则不得依据专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项的规定拒绝授予其专利权。例如以下几类方法: (1) 为治疗肢体或器官残缺目的而制造假肢或者假体的方法,以及为制造该假肢或者假体而实施的测量方法。如一种制造假牙的方法,该方法包括在病人口腔中制作牙齿模具,而在体外制造假牙,虽然其最终目的是治疗,但是该方法本身的目的是制造出合适的假牙。 (2) 通过非外科手术方式处置动物体以改变其生长特性的畜牧业生产方法。例如,通过对活羊施加一定的电磁刺激促进其增长、提高羊肉质量或增加羊毛产量的方法。 (3) 动物屠宰方法。 (4) 对于已经死亡的人体或动物体采取的处置方法。例如解剖、整理遗容、尸体防腐、制作标本的方法。 (5) 单纯的美容方法,即不介入人体或不产生创伤的美容方法,包括在皮肤、毛发、指甲、牙齿外部可为人们所视的部位局部实施的、非治疗目的的身体除臭、保护、装饰或者修饰方法。 (6) 为使处于非病态的人或者动物感觉舒适、愉快或者在诸如潜水、防毒等特殊情况下输送氧气、负氧离子、水分的方法。 (7) 杀灭人体或者动物体外部(皮肤或毛发上,但不包括伤口和感染部位) 的细菌、病毒、虱子、跳蚤的方法。 外科手术方法,是指使用器械对有生命的人体或者动物体实施的剖开、切除、缝合、纹刺等创伤性或者介入性治疗或处置的方法,这种外科手术方法不能被授予专利权。但是,对于已经死亡的人体或者动物体实施的外科手术方法,只要该方法不违反专利法第五条,则属于可授予专利权的客体。 以治疗为目的的外科手术方法,属于治疗方法,根据专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项的规定不授予其专利权。 法22.4 非治疗目的的外科手术方法的审查,参见本部分第五章。 第五章实用性 外科手术方法包括治疗目的或非治疗目的的手术方法。以治疗为目的的外科手术方法属于本部分第一章第3.3节中不授予专利权的客体;对于非治疗目的的外科手术方法,由于是以有生命的人或动物为实施对象,无法在产业上使用,因此不具备实用性。例如,为美容而实施的外科手术方法,或者采用外科手术从活牛身体上摘取牛黄的方法,以及为辅助诊断而采用的外科手术方法,如实施冠状造影之前采用的外科手术方法等。 测量人体在极限情况下的生理参数需要将被测者置于极限环境中,这会对人的生命构成威胁,并且不同的人所可以耐受的极限条件是不同的,需要有经验的测试人员根据被测者的情况来确定其耐受的极限条件,因此这类方法无法在产业上使用,不具备实用性。 以下测量方法属于不具备实用性的情况: (1) 通过逐渐降低人或动物的体温,以测量人或动物对寒冷耐受程度的测量方法; (2) 利用降低吸入气体中氧气分压的方法逐级增加冠状动脉的负荷,并通过动脉血压的动态变化观察冠状动脉的代偿反应,以测量冠状动脉代谢机能的非侵入性的检查方法。[Page]
第十章 关于化学领域发明专利申请审查的若干规定 2.3 医生处方 法22.4 医生处方指医生根据具体病人的病情所开的药方。医生处方和医生对处方的调剂以及仅仅根据医生处方配药的过程,均没有工业实用性,不能授予专利权。 2.4 物质的医药用途 物质的医药用途如果是疾病的诊断和治疗方法,则因属于专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项规定的情形,不能授予专利权。但是如果它们用于制造药品,则可依法授予专利权(参见本章第 3.5 用途权利要求 化学物质的用途发明是基于发现物质新的性能、并利用此性能而作出的发明。无论是新物质还是已知物质,其性能是物质本身所固有的,用途发明的本质不在于物质本身,而在于物质性能的应用。因此,用途发明是一种方法发明,其权利要求属于方法类型。 如果利用一种物质A而发明了一种物质B,那么自然应当以物质B本身申请专利,其权利要求属于产品类型,不作为用途权利要求。 审查员应当注意从权利要求的撰写措词上区分用途权利要求和产品权利要求。例如,“用化合物X作为杀虫剂”或者“化合物X作为杀虫剂的应用”是用途权利要求,属于方法类型,而“用化合物X制成的杀虫剂”或者“含化合物X的杀虫剂”,则不是用途权利要求,而是产品权利要求。 还应当明确的是“化合物X作为杀虫剂的应用”不应当把它理解为与“作杀虫剂用的化合物X”相等同。后者是限定用途的产品权利要求,不是用途权利要求。 物质的医药用途如果以“用于治病”、“用于诊断病”、“作为药物的应用”等等这样的权利要求申请专利,则属于专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项“疾病的诊断和治疗方法”,因此不能被允许;但是由于药品及其制备方法均可依法授予专利,因此物质的医药用途发明以药品权利要求或者如“在制药中的应用”、“在制备治某病的药中的应用”等等属于制药方法类型的用途权利要求申请专利,不属于专利法第二十五条第一款第(三)项规定的情形。 上述的属于制药方法类型的用途权利要求可撰写成如“化合物X作为制备治Y病药的应用”或与此类似的形式。[Page] 我国专利法怎样规制医疗方法发明 就如何变革与医疗方法发明有关的专利制度这个问题上,上文对美国等判例法国家有关法律制度的讨论对我国有哪些启示呢?上文的内容表明:与医疗方法发明有关的专利制度的变革要遵循三个基本原则。下面,我们讨论这些原则。 (一)仅仅关注呐喊的人 Weldon E. Havins强烈批评了美国专利法第287节(c)。他认为该节仅仅把医疗方法专利侵权责任豁免权授予“专业医疗人员”,而不是全体民众,其原因在于——仅仅专业医疗人员的社团在美国国会大喊大叫过,而没有代表全体民众的社团曾经这么做。 他认为该节的内容,以及该节进入美国专利法的方式都是荒谬的、不公正的。他还认为:世界上绝大部分国家都明文禁止签发医疗方法专利这个事实能够证明:美国允许签发医疗方法专利的制度设计是错误的。与Weldon E. Havins的观点相反,我们认为由立法者凭借其对沉默者利益与吁求的空想来编造法律规则,这种制度安排要更为荒谬。公正的法律规则就是更多的利益集团参与争论并取得妥协的规则,而并非与争议的事件毫无利益关系的立法者想象、思考出来的规则。此外,世界大多数国家禁止签发医疗方法专利——这个事实命题对于证明“美国的制度安排是错误的”没有任何用处。前一命题更不能成为推定后一命题的充分条件。我们认为:“仅仅关注呐喊的人”,这应当成为发动医疗方法发明上之专利制度变革的一个基本原则。只要一个规则是利益相关人最充分参与的情况下取得妥协而产生的规则,那么它就是必要的、公正的,否则,它就应当被专利法所剔除。从这种意义上讲,我国《专利法》第25条(三) 是一个没有必要进入成文法的规则。 (二)遵守科斯定理 按照科斯定理,一项初始的所有权安排旨在消除经济活动的外部性,将外部性内化,从而使经济单位的私人收益接近社会收益,私人成本接近社会成本,从而提高资源配置效率。因此,私权受到的保护越充分,私人收益的渗漏就越少。“私人收益‘渗漏’越少,所有权效率越高;反之,私人收益率越是小于社会收益率,所有权效率越低。”这样,基于充分私有化、充分个人自决的制度安排会产生最大的社会效率。 经济学的科斯定理把政府的作用限定为产权的初始配置,“彻底地排除了福利经济学第二定理中所提及的政府在分配中的作用。” 对于一项存在交易价值的利益期待,政府除了设计一套把它分配给私人的初始配置制度之外,没有必要再作其他事情。按照该定理,政府在专利制度中扮演的角色仅仅是对发明人签发私有产权证书的机构。政府试图剥夺医疗方法发明人对其抽象物产权的垄断权,从而实现对公众的利益分配制度的正义性,这是完全没有必要的政府热情(governmentinitially enthusiastic)。然而,上述定理包含了一个适用前提:在初始配置产生的私有产权上,私人收益内化的成本要小于专利制度产生的收益。也就是说,保证专利权得到执行的私人与社会成本要小于专利制度产生的私人和社会总收益。 在伴随机器、制品、组合物的销售与使用的医疗方法专利往往有较低的执行成本。例如:证明侵权行为可以通过证明有关产品的购买或者使用来进行。问题在于,纯粹医疗方法专利的侵权认定成本非常高昂。这种成本不仅仅是经济费用,而且可能需要人们负担精神与道德生活的诸多不便,从而损害私人生活的品质。在上文的Pallin v. Singer案中,原告寻求保护的就是一项纯粹的医疗方法专利。对这个专利技术的使用仅仅需要不受任何专利权保护的手术刀、麻醉剂。这种情况下,证明侵权的方式有:(1)亲临手术现场或询问病人。美国每年有100多万个手术使用Pallin的技术。Pallin就每个手术要求的专利使用费是3-4美元。亲临每一个手术现场去收取3-4美元,这是专利权人无法接受的一个事实。询问病人的费用也很高昂。即使专利权人愿意承受上述成本,病人也可能不愿意承受其隐私权受到的侵犯、医生则会拒绝他人对其职业活动进行的骚扰。(2)进入手术记录。在美国,外科手术实施报告书一般不对第三人公开。专利权人可以去保险公司、诊所、健康维护组织查看计算机记录。 然而,他必须获得传令(subpoena)来获得相关记录。 相关的调查费用会非常高。 然而,上述案例并不表明国家必须禁止签发医疗方法专利。美国专利法第287节(c)有限制地排除医疗方法专利的可执行性,这样上述成本就被完全消除了。此外,Gerald J. Mossinghoff所建议的对医疗方法专利的强制许可制度也能消除上述成本。[Page] 有些医疗方法的单次使用能够为使用人带来巨大的收益,在这类医疗方法上,按照Pallin v. Singer案的结论,或者按照美国专利法第287节(c)的规定排除医疗方法专利的可执行性也许会使得专利权人的私人收益产生巨大的渗漏。而同时,执行这些专利权的费用则极为低廉。我们用基因诊断技术说明这个问题。美国有300万人由于遗传病或者先天原因而智力迟钝。更多的人是天生的心脏病患者、聋子、瞎子、侏儒。遗传病已经占加拿大、美国儿童医院病人总数的30%以上。 全球患有严重遗传病的人占4%, 目前,基因诊断能够发现人类15%的遗传病。1996年,美国遗传诊断的市场规模已经达到40亿美元。到2007年,其将达到200亿美元。目前,在这个市场上,单次基因诊断的费用可能超过数千美元。能够对某些遗传病进行遗传诊断的机构则可能少到数百家、数十家。目前,一些专利权人已经通过许可制度执行一些与基因诊断有关的专利。例如:按照欧洲议会 在我国,成文法“一刀切”地剥夺了医疗方法发明获得专利权的机会。这样,科斯定理得到尊重与适用的机会就被完全剥夺了。 (三)仅仅关注经验命题 上文讲到,新西兰高等法院已经承认医疗方法可以构成新西兰《专利法》(1953)上的发明,但是没有明确判定其属于可享专利性的技术主题。其认为:如果其可享专利性被排除,那么该排除的理由只能是道德或者政策理由。实际上,道德或者政策的理由往往由一些形而上学的伦理命题堆积而成。我们认为:医疗方法的可享专利性不能简单地被这类命题所剥夺。形而上学地争论伦理命题的真假,这对于专利制度的设计没有任何意义。除非把寻求伦理命题真值的活动还原为寻求事实命题真值的活动,对一切法律原则的讨论都会陷入虚妄。从这个意义上讲,哲学家马赫的名言——不可量化者皆虚假——仍然有理论价值。制定和执行专利政策的时候,我们需要记得:抽象的、无可辩驳的价值命题仅仅是人们诉诸情感诉求、减少决策成本的工具。如果我们需要真正认识到要解决的问题,以及解决问题的最有效率的方法,我们必须仅仅关注事实命题。这就要求我们设计医疗方法的专利制度时,要依靠实证分析、经验数据,而不是堆积形而上学的信仰、主义或者教条。 七、结论 根据上述三个原则,我们只能判定:无论Trips是否要求WTO成员国对医疗方法提供专利保护,中国都有必要删除其《专利法》第25条(三)的内容。至于怎样对医疗方法发明提供专利保护,这取决于利益相关人在法院、立法机关进行的争论,以及法院、立法机关对科斯定理、对事实命题的尊重程度。
- 个人简介:(学术)
- 中国政法大学教授、博士生导师
- 知识产权法研究所所长、无形资产管理研究中心主任
- 北京大学法学博士
- 中国人民大学法学博士后
- 邮箱:fengxiaoqingipr@sina.com
- 北京市海淀区西土城路25号中国政法大学知识产权法研究所
- 个人简介:(实务)
- 最高法院案例指导工作专家委员会委员
- 最高法院知识产权司法保护研究中心首届研究员
- 中欧仲裁中心仲裁员
- 深圳、南京仲裁委员会仲裁员
- 北京天驰君泰律师事务所律师
- 中国律协知识产权专业委员会委员
- 中国审判研究会知识产权审判理论专业委员会委员
- 通讯处:(Zip:100088)
点击进入免费咨询>>