1

In reference to the patent: WO 2010/056908 A1

Have the researchers and applicants at Rutgers considered the problems raised in this article? This is not a discovery, but an appropriation.

1

The article you cited was from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). That article was well-researched and would have been the one I used in answering your question had you not already supplied it.

However, a few notes. The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefits Sharing that resulted from the CBD went into effect in 2010, after the priority date of this application.

One hundred and ninety-five states and the European Union are parties to the convention. All UN member states—with the exception of the United States—have ratified the treaty.

Rutgers being a US university, it has no requirement to adhere to the Nagoya Protocol.

Regardless, the examiner issued a non-final rejection for this application, which is available from USPTO Public Pair under Publication Number US 20110318403 A1. There was an earlier non-final rejection that was retracted after a subsequent interview between the inventors and examiner.

The examiner did not (could not) cite the Nagoya Protocol in his rejection due to the points raised earlier, but instead found prior art in earlier patent applications, namely: WO 2006/009417 A1, WO 2006/009418 A1, US 2009/0197839 A1, US 2008/0261291 A1 (all De La Llata Romero) and US 2006/0018867 A1 (Kawasaki).

The application was subsequently listed as abandoned on July 11, 2014 due a failure to respond to an office action. It is possible, but unlikely, that it would be revived. As such, it will serve as further prior art for anyone attempting to patent applications of that extract.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.