Impact of patent-granting differences between Japan and the United States on patent protection for medical methods: insights from genome editing patents.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-23 DOI:10.1080/13543776.2025.2605318
Toru Matsuoka, Shingo Kano
{"title":"Impact of patent-granting differences between Japan and the United States on patent protection for medical methods: insights from genome editing patents.","authors":"Toru Matsuoka, Shingo Kano","doi":"10.1080/13543776.2025.2605318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Securing patents in multiple countries has become essential for the development of global medical products. However, differences in national patent systems result in varying patentability standards. Although global claim construction strategies have been applied in practice, these approaches have not yet been systematically organized.</p><p><strong>Area covered: </strong>This study examines how the patent scope for patent families of international applications related to genome editing technologies filed in 2013, differs between Japan, where medical method patents are prohibited, and the United States, where such patents are permitted.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>For CRISPR-Cas system patents, claim structures varied significantly, even among the corresponding family patents. To navigate these differences, the following strategies were proposed for filing patents in countries that prohibit medical method patents such as Japan: Convert medical method claims in the U.S. into composition claims that include product inventions, as this process ensures that such claims allow for the enforcement of rights against the suppliers of infringing products.Clearly define the scope of the claimed use-inventions when specifying the characteristics of the product based on its effects.Explicitly describe cells produced by a specific manufacturing method within the claimed rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":12314,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents","volume":" ","pages":"133-144"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2025.2605318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Securing patents in multiple countries has become essential for the development of global medical products. However, differences in national patent systems result in varying patentability standards. Although global claim construction strategies have been applied in practice, these approaches have not yet been systematically organized.

Area covered: This study examines how the patent scope for patent families of international applications related to genome editing technologies filed in 2013, differs between Japan, where medical method patents are prohibited, and the United States, where such patents are permitted.

Expert opinion: For CRISPR-Cas system patents, claim structures varied significantly, even among the corresponding family patents. To navigate these differences, the following strategies were proposed for filing patents in countries that prohibit medical method patents such as Japan: Convert medical method claims in the U.S. into composition claims that include product inventions, as this process ensures that such claims allow for the enforcement of rights against the suppliers of infringing products.Clearly define the scope of the claimed use-inventions when specifying the characteristics of the product based on its effects.Explicitly describe cells produced by a specific manufacturing method within the claimed rights.

日本和美国专利授予差异对医疗方法专利保护的影响:来自基因组编辑专利的见解。
导言:在多个国家获得专利对于全球医疗产品的发展至关重要。然而,各国专利制度的差异导致了可专利性标准的不同。尽管全球索赔构建策略在实践中得到了应用,但这些方法尚未得到系统的组织。涉及领域:本研究考察了2013年提交的与基因组编辑技术相关的国际申请的专利族的专利范围在禁止医疗方法专利的日本和允许此类专利的美国之间的差异。专家意见:对于CRISPR-Cas系统专利,即使在相应的家族专利中,权利要求结构也存在显着差异。为了解决这些差异,在禁止医疗方法专利的国家(如日本)申请专利时,提出了以下策略:-将美国的医疗方法权利要求转换为包括产品发明的组合物权利要求,因为这一过程确保此类权利要求允许对侵权产品的供应商实施权利。-在根据产品效果规定产品特性时,明确要求使用发明的范围。-明确描述在要求的权利范围内通过特定制造方法生产的细胞。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
1.50%
发文量
50
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents (ISSN 1354-3776 [print], 1744-7674 [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on recent pharmaceutical patent claims, providing expert opinion the scope for future development, in the context of the scientific literature. The Editors welcome: Reviews covering recent patent claims on compounds or applications with therapeutic potential, including biotherapeutics and small-molecule agents with specific molecular targets; and patenting trends in a particular therapeutic area Patent Evaluations examining the aims and chemical and biological claims of individual patents Perspectives on issues relating to intellectual property The audience consists of scientists, managers and decision-makers in the pharmaceutical industry and others closely involved in R&D Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书