Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Chinese Medicine 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Commentary

Scope of claim coverage in patents of fufang Chinese herbal drugs: Substitution of ingredients

Authors: Xinsheng Wang, Jiaher Tian, Albert Wai-Kit Chan

Published in: Chinese Medicine | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Herbal ingredients in a Chinese fufang prescription are often replaced by one or several other herbal combinations. As there have been very few Chinese herbal patent infringement cases, it is still unclear how the Doctrine of Equivalents should be applied to determine the scope of 'equivalents' in Chinese fufang prescriptions. Case law principles from cases in other technical areas such as chemical patents and biological drug patents can be borrowed to ascertain a precise scope of a fufang patent. This article summarizes and discusses several chemical and biopharmaceutical patent cases. In cases where a certain herbal ingredient is substituted by another herb or a combination of herbs, accused infringers are likely to relate herbal drug patents to chemical drug patents with strict interpretation whereas patent owners may take advantage of the liberal application of Doctrine of Equivalence in biopharmaceutical patents by analogizing the complex nature of herbal drugs with biological drugs. Therefore, consideration should be given to the purpose of an ingredient in a patent, the qualities when combined with the other ingredients and the intended function. The scope of equivalents also depends on the stage of the prior art. Moreover, it is desirable to disclose any potential substitutes when drafting the application. Claims should be drafted in such a way that all foreseeable modifications are encompassed for the protection of the patent owner's intellectual property.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.: 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.: 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
2.
go back to reference Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.: 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.: 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
3.
go back to reference Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.: 781 F.2d FFF, 870 (Fed.Cir.1985) Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd.: 781 F.2d FFF, 870 (Fed.Cir.1985)
4.
go back to reference Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: 535 U.S.722 (2002), vacating 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc) Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: 535 U.S.722 (2002), vacating 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc)
5.
go back to reference Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc)
6.
8.
go back to reference Swanson v. Unarco Industries, Inc.: 479 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1973); Wicke v. Ostrum, 103 U.S. 461, 26 L. Ed. 409 (1880) Swanson v. Unarco Industries, Inc.: 479 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1973); Wicke v. Ostrum, 103 U.S. 461, 26 L. Ed. 409 (1880)
9.
go back to reference Parmlee Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zink: 285 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1961) Parmlee Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zink: 285 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1961)
10.
go back to reference Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n: 109 F.3d 726 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Tanabe Seiyaku Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Intern. Trade Com'n: 109 F.3d 726 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
11.
go back to reference Hormone Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.: Genentech, 904 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The court considers whether the accused infringing peptide is an equivalent despite the fact that it has different numbers of amino acids from the patented peptide.) Hormone Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc.: Genentech, 904 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The court considers whether the accused infringing peptide is an equivalent despite the fact that it has different numbers of amino acids from the patented peptide.)
12.
go back to reference Ryan AL, Brooks RG: Innovation v. Evasion: Clarafying patent rights in second-generation genes and Proteins. 17 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1265 (2002) Ryan AL, Brooks RG: Innovation v. Evasion: Clarafying patent rights in second-generation genes and Proteins. 17 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1265 (2002)
13.
go back to reference Genentech, Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation, Ltd.: 798 F. Supp. 213 (D. Del. 1992) Genentech, Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation, Ltd.: 798 F. Supp. 213 (D. Del. 1992)
14.
go back to reference Genentech, Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation, Ltd.: 29 F.3d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Genentech, Inc. v. The Wellcome Foundation, Ltd.: 29 F.3d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
15.
go back to reference Schwarz Pharma Inc., Paddock Laboratories, Inc.: 504 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Schwarz Pharma Inc., Paddock Laboratories, Inc.: 504 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
16.
go back to reference Pemco Products, Inc., v. General Mills, Inc.: 261 F.2d 302, 119 U.S.P.Q. 454, (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1958) (applicant claimed a veterinary therapeutic agent that is ingestible, nontoxic and has an active ingredient for expelling or destroying worms. The claims cover a broad group of over twenty cadmium compounds, yet only tested the safety, effectiveness and reliablility of less than three compounds. The patent was held invalid because the claims are too broad and overclaim the invention.) Pemco Products, Inc., v. General Mills, Inc.: 261 F.2d 302, 119 U.S.P.Q. 454, (C.C.A. 6th Cir. 1958) (applicant claimed a veterinary therapeutic agent that is ingestible, nontoxic and has an active ingredient for expelling or destroying worms. The claims cover a broad group of over twenty cadmium compounds, yet only tested the safety, effectiveness and reliablility of less than three compounds. The patent was held invalid because the claims are too broad and overclaim the invention.)
Metadata
Title
Scope of claim coverage in patents of fufang Chinese herbal drugs: Substitution of ingredients
Authors
Xinsheng Wang
Jiaher Tian
Albert Wai-Kit Chan
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Chinese Medicine / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1749-8546
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8546-6-30

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Chinese Medicine 1/2011 Go to the issue