Protecting Innovation: Expert Strategies for Trademark and Patent Management in Biotech and Beyond
In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, the management of intellectual property (IP) is paramount for businesses, particularly in the dynamic fields of biotechnology and innovation. This article features insights from Martin MacLean and Rebecca Tew, partners at Mathys & Squire, who share their expertise on navigating the challenges of trademark and patent management. From contentious and non-contentious trademark work to effective strategies for securing and enforcing patent rights, their perspectives highlight the critical considerations that businesses must address to maintain a competitive edge and protect their valuable IP assets.
Rebecca Tews and Martin MacLean Mathys & Squire LLP
Martin MacLean:
When managing patent portfolios in biotech fields such as protein therapeutics, antibodies, and vaccines, what are the key challenges you face, and how do you ensure your clients maintain a competitive edge globally?
Managing patent portfolios in the biotech sectors, including protein therapeutics, antibodies, and vaccines, presents a unique set of challenges that demand both technical expertise and strategic foresight.
One of the foremost challenges in biotech patent management is the timing of patent filings. Many companies file patents at the earliest possible opportunity, often before sufficient supporting data have been generated. In the context of the European Patent Office (EPO), the ability to demonstrate the plausibility of a claimed clinical effect is crucial. When early data fail to substantiate claims, applicants may face rejections, particularly when close prior art exists that asserts similar effects. Although the EPO’s G2/21 decision has provided some guidance, demonstrating distinctiveness remains a significant hurdle.
The complexity inherent in biologics further complicates patentability assessments. Proteins and antibodies possess intricate structures and functions that necessitate detailed disclosures. To adequately capture the uniqueness of an invention, robust experimental data must be accompanied by clear explanations of the structure-function relationships. This complexity requires patent attorneys to possess a deep understanding of both the scientific and legal aspects of their clients’ innovations.
Another persistent challenge lies in balancing broad and narrow claims during patent prosecution. Broad claims can offer extensive coverage and protection but are often more vulnerable to invalidation. Conversely, narrow claims may limit a client’s competitive advantage. Thus, striking the right balance becomes critical. Patent attorneys must draft claims that provide sufficient breadth while ensuring defensibility against potential challenges.
Global patent strategies also pose unique challenges, as different jurisdictions have varying standards for patentability, particularly in the biotech sector. Navigating these differences requires tailored strategies that align with the specific legal landscapes of each market. This complexity necessitates thorough preparation and foresight, enabling clients to secure their innovations across multiple jurisdictions effectively. Attorneys must keep up to date on developments in all key jurisdictions. For example, a decision such as the US Supreme Court decision in Mayo v Prometheus established a higher threshold for the patentability of methods involving natural phenomena. At a stroke, the decision wiped billions off the value of diagnostics IP estates, and patent attorneys were left scrambling for new approaches to protect their clients’ interests in those fields.
Ensuring freedom to operate (FTO) is another critical aspect of biotech patent management. In crowded fields like antibodies and vaccines, overlapping patents can create significant infringement risks. Conducting comprehensive FTO analyses allows clients to navigate these complexities, identifying potential infringement issues before they arise.
To maintain a competitive edge in this rapidly evolving landscape, several strategic approaches can be employed. Proactive patent filing, informed by a robust supporting data package, is essential. Aligning patent applications with sufficient experimental data mitigates the risks associated with premature filings. Thorough analysis and strategic timing can significantly enhance the chances of successful prosecution.
Furthermore, establishing a systematic approach for clients to lead competitor intelligence efforts can yield valuable insights into market dynamics and emerging technologies. By monitoring third-party IP activity, including patent filings and oppositions, clients can adapt their strategies proactively and seize opportunities for third-party oppositions.
Collaborative research agreements with academic institutions and industry partners can also enhance innovation and result in joint patents, sharing the risks and rewards associated with patent prosecution and enforcement. Dynamic portfolio management—regularly reviewing and adjusting the patent portfolio to align with market trends—ensures that clients remain responsive to changes in the biotech landscape.
Moreover, education and training play crucial roles in empowering clients to navigate the complexities of patent management. Conducting workshops on patent law and biotechnology developments helps clients make informed strategic decisions.
Finally, integrating regulatory strategy into the innovation process is vital for success in the biotech sector. Understanding how patent rights interact with regulatory requirements ensures that innovations are not only protected but also compliant with necessary trials and validations.
By addressing these multifaceted challenges with informed strategies, patent attorneys can help clients navigate the complexities of the biotech landscape effectively. This comprehensive approach enhances patent protection and equips clients to remain competitive, positioning them favourably in their respective fields amid a rapidly changing environment.
You have extensive experience with European Patent Office (EPO) hearings, particularly in opposition and defence cases. Can you share your approach to preparing for these hearings and any notable challenges specific to biotech inventions?
Biotech patents are often subject to post-grant challenges, such as oppositions and invalidity claims. Being prepared for these potential disputes is essential for maintaining the integrity of a patent portfolio. A proactive approach to managing these risks involves establishing robust defences and strategies for potential litigation.
Preparing for European Patent Office (EPO) hearings involving biotech inventions requires a meticulous and adaptive approach. My experience has taught me that the landscape is ever-changing, with each case presenting its unique set of challenges.
The first step in my preparation involves a comprehensive review of all relevant case materials. This includes analysing the patent specification in detail—understanding the claims, supporting data, and any amendments that have been made. In biotech, where the stakes often involve substantial investments and cutting-edge science, it’s crucial to ensure that the patent’s claims are clearly articulated and defensible. I also carefully examine opposition documents, focusing on the grounds for opposition and the prior art cited by the opponent. This step is foundational; a solid grasp of the material allows me to anticipate the opponent’s arguments and prepare counterarguments effectively.
Next comes the crucial task of conducting a detailed prior art analysis. In biotech, this often means delving into complex scientific literature and assessing how the claimed invention stands in relation to existing patents. The aim is not only to validate the patent’s claims but also to identify potential weaknesses that the opposition may exploit.
An additional layer of complexity arises when dealing with AI-based biotech inventions, particularly in relation to hearings before the Examining Divisions of the EPO. The intersection of AI and biotechnology poses novel challenges in patentability.
In summary, my approach to preparing for EPO hearings is multifaceted and dynamic. Each case demands a tailored strategy that accounts for the intricacies of the technology involved, the arguments presented by the opposition, and the evolving landscape of patent law. By embracing a proactive mindset and remaining adaptable, I ensure that my clients are well-prepared to navigate the complexities of the hearing process, ultimately safeguarding their innovations and intellectual property in a fiercely competitive environment.
Given your background in technologies like diagnostic assays and green agrochemicals, how do you balance innovation with ensuring freedom to operate for your clients, particularly in a highly competitive and regulated industry?
Balancing innovation with freedom to operate in the fields of diagnostic assays and green agrochemicals is a nuanced and challenging endeavour. These are highly competitive and regulated industries, and it is essential to navigate both the patent landscape and the regulatory framework effectively.
One of the first considerations is understanding that regulatory approval is often decoupled from the patent process. This distinction is particularly important when dealing with combination products, where the specific “active compound” presented in regulatory applications can significantly influence both approval and marketability. Regulatory bodies typically evaluate products based on narrowly defined claims, and the language used in patent applications must reflect this precision. For example, when prosecuting combination products, careful consideration must be given to how we define the combination and its medical use. Inadequate or vague language could lead to misalignment between the patent claims and regulatory expectations, jeopardising both patent protection and the ability to gain regulatory approval.
In practice, this means that my team and I work closely with clients to ensure that the definitions we use in patent applications align not only with scientific realities but also with regulatory requirements. For instance, if a diagnostic assay relies on a combination of biomarkers, it’s crucial to articulate this combination precisely in both the patent claims and the regulatory submission. A failure to do so could result in regulatory rejection or challenges in asserting patent rights later on.
The introduction of “equivalents” in UK infringement proceedings adds another layer to this discussion. The concept of equivalents allows for some leeway in how patents are interpreted, acknowledging that innovations may not always replicate the patented invention in an identical manner but may still fall within its protective scope. This legal framework can both support innovation by providing a degree of flexibility and complicate the FTO landscape, as it may be unclear whether a new product or process is infringing upon existing patents.
In practice, this means that when we innovate, we must do so with a keen awareness of existing patents and the potential for equivalents. Comprehensive FTO analyses are essential to identify existing patents that may pose risks. These analyses not only include searching granted patents but also examining pending applications and published literature. Understanding the competitive landscape allows us to navigate potential infringement risks proactively, ensuring that our clients can pursue their innovations without fear of legal repercussions.
Furthermore, fostering a culture of collaboration between regulatory affairs and patent teams can be invaluable. Regular communication ensures that both aspects are aligned and that innovations are not developed in a vacuum. For example, when working on green agrochemicals, where environmental regulations play a significant role, it’s crucial to consider both the patent strategy and the regulatory pathway simultaneously. This dual approach can streamline the process, minimising the risks of regulatory delays or challenges later on.
Ultimately, achieving a balance between innovation and FTO requires a strategic, multifaceted approach. By understanding the nuances of regulatory approvals and how they intersect with patent claims, and by staying vigilant about the patent landscape, we can position our clients for success. This proactive strategy not only protects their innovations but also ensures they can operate freely in a competitive marketplace. In the rapidly evolving sectors of diagnostic assays and green agrochemicals, this balance is essential for driving sustainable innovation while navigating complex legal and regulatory frameworks.
Due diligence is crucial in patent acquisitions and mergers. How do you approach patent due diligence for biotech companies, and what factors do you prioritise when evaluating the strength of a patent portfolio?
Conducting patent due diligence for biotech companies during acquisitions and mergers is a meticulous process that requires a keen understanding of both the technical aspects of the patents involved and the broader competitive landscape. My approach is holistic, encompassing several key factors that help evaluate the strength and viability of a patent portfolio.
One of the first elements I assess is the type of granted claims within the patents. In the biotech sector, claims can be broadly categorised into product claims, medical use claims, and claims related to manufacturing processes. Each type serves a different strategic purpose and offers varying degrees of protection. For instance, product claims provide direct protection for a specific therapeutic compound, while medical use claims may cover a broader range of applications for that compound. Understanding the composition of these claims is crucial, as it impacts both the competitive landscape and potential infringement risks. In some cases, a strong medical use claim can enhance the overall value of a portfolio by allowing for broader therapeutic applications, while in other cases, a narrowly defined product claim might leave a company vulnerable to competitors exploiting alternative uses.
Next, I examine the remaining patent term of the granted patents. The lifespan of a patent can significantly influence its value. A patent nearing expiration may offer limited competitive advantages, while a robust patent with a substantial remaining term can provide significant market exclusivity. This factor becomes even more pertinent in the biotech field, where the development and approval processes can span years, making the remaining patent life critical for assessing the potential return on investment.
The position of Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) is another essential element in my due diligence process. SPCs can extend the protection of a patent by up to five years in the European Union, providing additional exclusivity for products that have undergone rigorous regulatory approval processes. Assessing whether an SPC has been granted or is likely to be granted for a particular patent can significantly enhance the overall value of a portfolio, making it an essential consideration during due diligence.
In parallel, I analyse the competitive landscape, focusing on the number of major competitors in the field. Understanding who the key players are can inform our strategy and risk assessment. A crowded market with many competitors may signal potential challenges in gaining market share or maintaining pricing power. Conversely, a more consolidated market can suggest fewer threats to exclusivity, enhancing the value of the patent portfolio.
Equally important is the number of competing products already in the market. Evaluating existing products helps gauge how saturated the market is and whether there are viable paths for commercialisation. If multiple competing products exist, it may indicate a highly competitive landscape where differentiation becomes crucial. This assessment provides insights into potential challenges the acquiring company may face post-acquisition, particularly in launching new products or securing market position.
Combining these factors creates a comprehensive picture of the patent portfolio’s strength and viability. Throughout this process, collaboration with technical and regulatory teams is vital to ensure that all aspects are considered holistically. By integrating scientific and business perspectives, we can provide clients with a nuanced understanding of the potential value and risks associated with a patent portfolio.
Ultimately, thorough patent due diligence not only helps identify potential pitfalls but also uncovers opportunities for growth and innovation. In the rapidly evolving biotech landscape, having a strong, defensible patent portfolio is crucial for securing a competitive edge, and my aim is to guide clients through this complex process, enabling informed strategic decisions that support their long-term success.
Rebecca Tew:
Can you explain the differences between contentious and non-contentious trademark work, and how do these areas impact the strategies you develop for your clients?
Contentious trademark work involves a dispute at some level. This will typically be a challenge to trademark rights, opposition to registration, invalidation claims, or an infringement issue arising from unauthorised use. While there may be litigation as a last resort, most contentious cases will involve settlement negotiations or mediation. Most often, contentious work arises as part of the effective policing and enforcement of our clients’ trademark rights.
Non-contentious trademark work centres on the identification, protection, and commercialisation of intellectual property (IP) assets. We provide advice and support throughout the whole trademark life cycle, from the selection and clearance of new trademarks to securing protection in relevant jurisdictions. We also assist with transactional matters, including assignments, licensing, and recordals.
A robust trademark strategy will inevitably involve both contentious and non-contentious work. It should include checks on the availability of new trademarks, strategic filing, and regular audits to ensure that the required registered protection is in place. Maintaining accurate records is also important, ensuring that trademarks are appropriately held within a corporate structure and that records are correct. This proactive input ensures that the portfolio is in optimal condition for commercialisation opportunities, funding assessments, or potential acquisitions.
This is complemented by effective policing, which includes monitoring trademark registers and market activity, both online and offline. When potentially conflicting trademark applications or activities are identified, contentious action may be necessary and establishing a preferred, standard plan of action for addressing these issues with clients, enables us to act quickly and deliver more effective resolutions.
What are the key considerations when managing global trademark portfolios, and how do you ensure compliance with varying international laws and regulations?
Establishing and managing a global trademark portfolio is essential for any business operating across international markets. At the outset, understanding local laws and nuances that may impact the use or protection of a particular trademark is vital. There can be unanticipated local or cultural meanings, and it is best to establish this at an early stage rather than having to adapt an otherwise international brand for a national market later on.
Strategic searching and filing strategies are key to successful portfolio management. Conducting searches in countries where there is an established market presence, growth potential, or anticipated development can help to avoid conflicts later down the line, especially when there has been significant investment in the brand. Considerations such as the need for discretion in making first filings, the use of priority claims, and the benefits of international treaties inform our filing strategies to enhance efficiency and reduce costs.
In every scenario, there will be a budget and benefits assessment to be made. Understanding costs at the various stages and allowing for unforeseen events facilitates budget planning and informs decisions on the timing of applications, taking advantage of priority filings and international treaties where possible.
Once established, a global trademark portfolio must be effectively maintained. It is essential to monitor renewal deadlines and maintenance events and to be aware of use requirements in different jurisdictions that are relevant to maintaining trademark validity. Regular audits ensure that protection aligns with the commercial needs of the business, considering new or discontinued product lines and making adjustments in the scope of protection.
Keeping up to date with international laws and regulations allows us to react where there are new legal developments. We utilise IP management tools to track changes in country laws or practices, integrating this information into our trademark management platform. Where we do not act directly and local representation is needed, we work with a trusted network of international firms that can assist our clients before local IP offices. Frequent collaboration with these colleagues enhances our understanding and experience of diverse practices globally, which means we can anticipate issues to directly benefit our portfolio management strategies.
How do you approach trademark clearance for clients, and what common pitfalls do you see that can jeopardise brand protection?
We use an in-house searching platform to access global trademark databases. Understanding a client’s business objectives and priorities allows me to identify key countries of immediate interest and those that may develop over the next five or so years. I can then run a landscaping search to provide an overview of trademark availability in the relevant markets at the outset so that we avoid future issues as far as possible as the business grows.
When a client has a number of possible trademark options, I conduct initial searches for each to identify any immediate conflict issues. This process often narrows down the options, enabling us to focus on the most favourable candidates. The aim is to select trademarks that are inherently registrable in the countries of interest and that present a low or acceptable degree of risk. Assessing the client’s risk profile is therefore crucial, as is exploring any mitigating factors for the potential risks identified.
Common pitfalls include the tendency to choose descriptive trademarks or those with descriptive elements in relation to the client’s goods or services. This can result in the identification of multiple conflict risks and difficulties in protecting and enforcing these marks with certainty. I therefore guide clients to avoid obvious selections and instead choose marks that carry no inherent meaning when applied to their goods or services or marks that are newly coined.
Challenges in finding an available trademark are often pronounced in crowded sectors such as software, electronics, and technology, where numerous broad scope registered trademark rights exist. For instance, a registration for “computer software” is extremely broad and may legally conflict with a chosen trademark even where there is a very different commercial application. We then need to look beyond the scope of these broad registrations and assess any vulnerability to produce a risk profile. The collections of broad scope registrations that exist on the various trademark registers do add to the challenge of clearance searching.
In your experience, what are the most effective strategies for policing and enforcing trademarks against counterfeiting, particularly in high-risk sectors like pharmaceuticals and electronics?
The most effective policing and enforcement strategies in high-risk sectors require a multi-faceted approach. There must be a portfolio of robust and comprehensive trademark registrations to support the development of a standard position on when and how to take action. There will generally be a combination of proactive and reactive actions which are specific to the approach, budget, and objectives of the business and should include:
Proactive Monitoring: Online surveillance tools are effective in monitoring e-commerce platforms, social media, and other online spaces to identify counterfeits and damaging use of trademarks. Physical market checks can also be commissioned in key territories alongside alerting and engaging with trading standards officers and customs.
Seizures/Criminal Enforcement: Collaborating with customs, trading standards, and law enforcement agencies to support seizures and criminal actions represents a cost-effective way to remove counterfeit goods from the marketplace. Ensuring that trademarks are recorded with customs authorities and engagement with relevant agencies and officials will enable better detection of counterfeit goods.
Civil Enforcement: Employing cease-and-desist letters and pursuing legal action, when necessary, can help combat large-scale counterfeiting or where an example can be made. The extent to which this is adopted will be guided by the scale of the problem and opportunities from intelligence gathering.
Awareness: Educating distributors and retailers to appreciate the issues and recognise counterfeit products. In some areas, running consumer awareness campaigns.
Technology: Keeping pace with technological advancements. Exploring solutions like blockchain for product authenticity tracking and using RFID or smart packaging to enhance traceability and identification.
Keeping on top of counterfeits, unfortunately, is an ongoing and significant commitment for businesses. Certainly, robust monitoring can inform the development of a strategic response to the problem.
Rebecca Tew – [email protected]
Martin MacLean – [email protected]
Mathys & Squire LLP
The Shard, 32 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9SG
T +44 (0)20 7830 0000
F +44 (0)20 7830 0001
[email protected]
www.mathys-squire.com