IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Institut Pasteur and Institut Pasteur de Tunis [2011] APO 19
Patent Application: 2008203830
Title:Gene associated with leishmania parasite virulence
Patent Applicant: Institut Pasteur and Institut Pasteur de Tunis
Delegate: Dr S.D.Barker
Decision Date: 22 March 2011
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – – case management of divisional applications – no response by applicant – application refused
Representation: Patent applicant: Pizzeys
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2008203830
Title:Gene associated with leishmania parasite virulence
Patent Applicant: Institut Pasteur and Institut Pasteur de Tunis
Date of Decision: 22 March 2011
DECISION
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Patent application 2008203830 was filed by Institut Pasteur and Institut Pasteur de Tunis as a divisional of application 2002345672 on 13 August 2008. An examination report issued on 15 November 2010, raising seven objections. In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following note:
"Objections 1, and 5-6 of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application AU 2002345672. Please note that if a response overcoming those objections is not filed within two months of the date of this report the Commissioner will consider whether to direct amendment of the application under section 107 or proceed to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Act. If intending to proceed under either of these provisions the Commissioner will notify you in writing and indicate the time and place you may be heard on the matter. In deciding the matter the Commissioner will consider all possible grounds of objection to the application not only those identified above."
As no reply was received, the Commissioner issued a hearing notice in the following terms:
"The examination report of 15 November 2010 raised an objection(s) equivalent to that in the parent application. In line with our approach to case management of divisionals, you were given two months to respond to that report. As no response has been received, the matter will now be set for hearing.
I believe that it is possible to hear this matter on the basis of written submissions, so I allow you one (1) month from the date of this letter to file any submissions you wish. Your submissions should address the ground(s) of objection identified in the examination report. Once your submissions have been received, or alternatively if no submissions are received, the matter will be passed to a hearing officer to issue a written decision. Please note that it is possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment.
Alternatively, if you file amendments overcoming the objection(s) within this period, the Commissioner may not need to proceed with the hearing."
The applicant has not provided any submissions.
The objection
I have reviewed the examiner's report, and I agree that there are appropriately raised objections. The applicant has chosen not to defend the application. They have provided no submissions disputing the objections, and have not proposed any amendment to attempt to overcome the objections. In these circumstances there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections. The application should be refused.
Dr S.D.Barker
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
- AGLC
- Institut Pasteur and Institut Pasteur de Tunis [2011] APO 19
- Case
- [2011] APO 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the objections raised by the examiner were valid and whether the applicant had adequately responded to them. The applicant was given two months to respond to the objections, but failed to do so. As a result, the Commissioner had to consider whether to refuse the application or direct amendment of the application. The applicant did not file any submissions or propose any amendments, and therefore had not demonstrated any reasonable prospects of overcoming the objections.
The Commissioner found that the objections raised by the examiner were valid and that the applicant had not provided any submissions or amendments to overcome the objections. The Commissioner concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections and that the application should be refused. The Commissioner also noted that the applicant's failure to respond to the objections was in line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisional applications.
The Commissioner refused the application. No further orders were made.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.