02724nam 2200565 450 99634424570331620200603171014.03-8452-9271-7(CKB)4100000005822169(WaSeSS)IndRDA00120416(oapen)https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/40386(PPN)270541373(EXLCZ)99410000000582216920200603d2018 uy 0engur|||||||||||txtrdacontentcrdamediacrrdacarrierAegis or Achilles heel the dilemma of homololy in biopatents in the wake of novozymes /Qinghua YangFirst edition.Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG2018Baden-Baden, Germany :Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH,2018.1 online resource (72 pages)Munich Intellectual Property Law Center – MIPLC3-8487-5021-X Includes bibliographical references.Biopatents frequently disclose sequences of polypeptides and nucleic acids in the written description. The claims often cover a homology range surrounding the disclosed sequence to get a broader protection. However, homology claims face a hurdle that they may lack support by the written description. The Supreme Court of China ruled that homology claims lack support, but a further limitation by species of origin satisfies this requirement. This study explains that homology per se should have formed the essence of such disputes. Homology dictates the skilled person’s confidence on the functionality of unknown sequences, and is involved in multiple patentability requirements. Thus, the assessment of support is not an isolated matter. Disparity of different requirements creates an unclaimable gap, and constitutes a discrimination to biotechnology. An appropriate test for the support requirement is thus furnished to confer a scope of protection commensurating to the technical contribution.BiotechnologyPatentsPatent laws and legislationpolypeptidehomologyAchilles HeelBiopatentsNovozymesChinese patent lawproteinAegis Heelsupport requirementDilemma of HomologyBiotechnologyPatent laws and legislation.346.0486Yang Qinghua973399WaSeSSWaSeSSBOOK996344245703316Aegis or Achilles heel2214547UNISA