미국특허청의 Enablement 요건 관련 새로운 가이드라인을 논하다.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d1750ed-3f61-4c7d-b372-860644494a65

New USPTO Guidelines: After the Supreme Court's Amgen Decision, In re Wands Factors Remain Applicable Enablement Framework

 

위 링크의 글에 새로운 USPTO Guidelines에 대한 설명이 있습니다. 

Takeaway 부분의 내용만 아래 간략히 정리하면 다음과 같습니다.

위 링크의 글을 바탕으로 두 명의 변호사가 논하는 대화를 ChatGPT를 이용해 구성했습니다.

 

Min: "Hello David, I've heard about this recent USPTO guideline related to enablement. As a Korean attorney, I'm a bit lost. Can you enlighten me?"

David: "Certainly, Min! So, on January 10, 2024, the USPTO issued new guidelines after a Supreme Court decision in 'Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al.' Essentially, these guidelines instruct on assessing enablement in utility patents."

Min: "I see. But what's the big deal with this Amgen case?"

David: "Well, in this case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Amgen's patents, which claimed a whole genus of cholesterol-lowering antibodies, were invalid for lack of enablement. The patents described only 26 examples but claimed millions of antibodies. It's like saying you know all the stars in the sky because you've seen 26 of them!"

Min: "Wow, that's quite a stretch. So, how do the Wands factors fit into this?"

David: "Ah, the Wands factors! They're like a checklist to see if you've done your homework properly. The guidelines emphasize that USPTO examiners should continue to use these factors, considering things like the amount of experimentation needed, the nature of the invention, and the breadth of the claims."

Min: "That makes sense. But how will this affect patent practice? Do we need to start writing novels for each application?"

David: "Haha, not novels, Min, but definitely more detailed descriptions. Especially for claims covering a genus by its function, like Amgen's. You need to show how to reach the full scope of the genus without turning the patent office into a high school science lab with endless experiments."

Min: "Understood. So, more guidance, fewer 'research assignments', and less 'trial and error'?"

David: "Exactly! Think of it like a recipe. You can't just list the ingredients; you need to explain how to bake the cake. And remember, the broader your claim, the more you need to enable. It's a balancing act."

Min: "Got it. I'll remember to bake a complete cake next time. Thanks, David!"

David: "Anytime, Min. Just don't make it too spicy for the patent examiners!"

<번역>

민: "안녕하세요 데이비드, 최근 USPTO의 실시가능성 관련 가이드라인에 대해 들었습니다. 한국 변호사로서 잘 모르겠습니다. 좀 알려주실 수 있나요?"

데이비드: "물론이죠, 민! 2024년 1월 10일, 미국특허청은 '암젠 대 사노피'의 대법원 판결 이후 새로운 가이드라인을 발표했는데요, 이 가이드라인의 핵심은 특허에서 실시가능성 평가에 대한 지침입니다."

민: "알겠습니다. 그런데 이 암젠 사건은 뭐가 큰 문제인가요?"

데이비드: "이 사건에서 대법원은 만장일치로 콜레스테롤 저하 항체 전체를 청구한 암젠의 특허가 실시가능성 부족으로 무효라고 판결했습니다. 이 특허는 26개의 예만 설명했지만 수백만 개의 항체를 청구했습니다. 이는 마치 26개의 별을 봤다고 하늘의 모든 별을 안다고 말하는 것과 같습니다."

민: "와, 그건 좀 무리네요. 그럼 Wands 요인은 어떻게 설명할 수 있을까요?"

데이비드: "아, Wands 요인! 숙제를 제대로 했는지 확인하는 체크리스트와 같은 것이죠. 가이드라인에서는 USPTO 심사관이 필요한 실험의 양, 발명의 성격, 청구항의 범위 등을 고려하여 이러한 요소를 계속 사용해야 한다고 강조하고 있습니다."

민: "말이 되네요. 하지만 이것이 특허 실무에 어떤 영향을 미칠까요? 출원할 때마다 소설을 써야 하나요?"

데이비드: "하하, 소설은 아니지만 더 자세한 설명이 필요하죠. 특히 암젠의 경우처럼 기능별로 속(genus)을 포함하는 청구항의 경우 더욱 그렇습니다. 특허청을 끝없는 실험을 하는 고등학교 과학 실험실로 만들지 않으면서도 어떻게 그 속의 전체 범위에 도달할 수 있는지 보여줘야 하죠."

민: "알겠습니다. 그럼 더 많은 가이드를 제공하고, '연구 과제'는 줄이고, '시행착오'는 줄이자는 건가요?"

데이비드: "맞아요! 레시피라고 생각해보세요. 단순히 재료만 나열하는 것이 아니라 케이크를 굽는 방법을 설명해야 합니다. 그리고 청구 범위가 넓을수록 더 많은 기능을 제공해야 한다는 점을 기억하세요. 균형을 잡아야 합니다."

민: "알았어요. 다음에는 완벽한 케이크를 굽는 것을 잊지 않겠습니다. 고마워요, 데이비드!"

데이비드: "언제든, 민. 다만 특허 심사관들이 먹기에는 너무 맵게 만들지 마세요!"