Introduction to patent applications for Markush compounds

Compound patents, as the most core and valuable patents of drugs, usually become an important part of the game between the original research company and the imitation company. The Markush claim is a special problem involved in the singleness of a patent application for a chemical invention. In 1920, Eugene Markush was the first inventor to successfully use such a claim in a U.S. patent, and was named after Eugene Markush (a transliteration of Markush). The Markush claim is a special problem involved in the singleness of a patent application for a chemical invention.

If an application defines a plurality of juxtaposed alternative elements in a single claim, it constitutes a "Markush" claim. If the optional elements in a Markush claim have similar properties, it should be considered that these optional elements are technically related to each other and have the same or corresponding specific technical characteristics, and the claim can be considered to meet the requirement of singularity. This alternative element is called the Markush element.

For the limitation of the scope of Markush's claims in the Patent Law, the emphasis and difficulty mainly lie in whether the description of the claims is clear and whether the scope of protection is clear. For the definition of Markush's structure, the most important thing is the definition of substituents. The definition of substituents in some patents is vague, and its purpose is often to obtain protection to the greatest extent. As a result, it not only brings great hidden dangers to the novelty of its own patents, but also hinders the layout of subsequent patents, which is neither self-interest nor benefit others. The scope of the definition of the substituent is the hardest hit area, some rights holders in order to obtain the largest range of patent protection, the substituent will often use some very wide coverage of the group and a wide range of digital definition, as a result, often lead to "sow a large area, receive a little bit" results. At the same time, the technical terms of the Markush claims should also be very clear. If they are easy-to-understand terms for people in the industry, they can be used directly. If not, they need to be explained.

Only when the specification is fully disclosed can the scope of the claims be stably protected. However, since the Markush claims contain a large number of compounds, it is not possible or necessary to include examples of each compound in the specification. Therefore, the number of examples in the patent application specification is usually less than the number of specific compounds covered by the claims. In this case, in the scope covered by the Markush claims, some compounds may not be prepared by the technical solutions disclosed in the preparation examples, or do not have the uses and effects of the specific compounds in the examples. This makes it possible to have problems in patent examination that the specification is not fully disclosed and the claims are not supported by the specification. Therefore, the following points should be done as much as possible in the manual:

1. Instructions must be clear and complete

Classes of protected compounds are identified. The judgment standard lies in whether a person skilled in the art to which the invention belongs can confirm the claimed Markush compound by referring to the prior art at the time of application according to the description of the specification and the claims.

2. The contents of the instructions must be able to achieve

In short, the protected compounds can be easily prepared. The judgment standard is that: the technical personnel in the field of the invention refers to the prior art at the time of the application, according to the preparation method disclosed in the specification, without excessive labor, can prepare the claimed Markush compound.

3. The instructions must describe the use and effects of the Markush compound

The specification should disclose the use and effect of a specific compound, not just a general description of the Markush compound as a whole; when it is not possible to directly predict whether the Markush compound has the use and effect to be achieved by the invention based on the prior art at the time of application, the specification should record experimental evidence sufficient to prove that the Markush compound has the use and effect to be achieved by the invention; if there are a variety of measurement methods for the effect of the Markush compound in the prior art, the description should also record the measurement method used by the applicant.

　　http://news.bioon.com/article/6709261.html