Summary: New reminders of the dangers of an excessively broad patent law • IPO finds cosmetic treatment patentable [hat tip: Glyn Moody]

Following the EPO decisions, the hearing officer in this case considered the claimed method was not treatment by surgery because the intervention did not burn the skin (as was the case in T 1172/03). There was also no suggestion that cells in the body were radically altered in the process (as was the case in T 383/03). The method was also not treatment by therapy, because (according to an expert medical witness) there were apparently no medical conditions that would benefit from wrinkle reduction resulting from the method. On the matter of inventive step, the hearing officer considered that GB2344532 did not contain clear and unmistakable directions to use the known process for reducing wrinkles, and that the use of the process to reduce wrinkles would be counter-intuitive (akin, so the hearing officer considered, to prescribing cigarettes for treatment of lung cancer), so the claimed invention would not be obvious to the skilled person. The objections raised could not therefore be sustained, and the application was remitted back to the examiner to conclude examination.

• Brazil Starts Public Consult On Retaliation Against US IP Rights

The Brazilian government today announced the start of a process of public consultation on suspension of concessions or obligations of intellectual property rights from the United States. The government on 15 March published a resolution of the Chamber of External Trade (CAMEX) launching the consultation, according to a Brazilian government press release. This follows a WTO dispute settlement ruling in a US-Brazil dispute on cotton subsidies where the US was found in non-compliance with international trade rules. The decision gave Brazil the authorisation to suspend its obligations on US goods including IP rights.

• More Examples Of Patent Incentives Making The World Less Safe [original source is Wired Magazine]

Well, given Monsanto's history of patenting disease resistant crops -- and then over-aggressively attacking anyone who uses such crops (even accidentally), it would seem like a rather legitimate fear. Perhaps, rather than brushing this fear off, the USDA's Cereal Disease Laboratory (CDL) should work to do something to fix things?

Related posts (about Monsanto):

1. [cref 13637]
2. [cref 20321]
3. [cref 20441]
4. [cref 20902]
5. [cref 23089]
6. [cref 23639]
7. [cref 18614]
8. [cref 21086]
9. [cref 22777]
10. [cref 22563]
11. [cref 22751]
12. [cref 22809]
13. [cref 23416]
14. [cref 20236]
15. [cref 23459]
16. [cref 22665]
17. [cref 23862]
18. [cref 23885]
19. [cref 24166]