Imagine, you win a particular case, and the entire structural proceedings is named after you. This happened almost a century back when Eugene Markush won US Application No. 611637, the case in which his claims of the alternate groups placed in the same core structural compound was accepted as Patent! Thus, what happens in a Markush Formula is, you’ve different subsequent, functional groups, or parts of it, chained or not, with variation in their placings, positions, or, frequencies. Yet, more than a decade back, I questioned the concept of Markush Patents! If I can recall, I had sent my article, and then I didn’t follow up with that too! Because this set of Claims come directly in conflict with the provisions of Refusal, for instance, under the ambit of Section 3(e) or 3(f), related to admixture or arrangement – rearrangement. Because, and correct me if I am wrong, Markush is nothing but arrangement – rearrangement of the different groups subsequently in the same compound formula as shown below! Correct? So how it is NOT different from mere mixture-admixture or mere arrangement – rearrangement?
The legal eagles’ say that COCA – COLA didn’t come for the Patent Prosecution because they know that the after the Expiry of 20 Years, their Formula would be opened to the Public, and that’s why they Kept it as a Trade-Secret! But my theory is they didn’t come forward because they knew that it was mere admixture – arrangement – re-arrangement, wherein later they cannot claim the Complexity on the likes of Markush principles, thus, ne’er came Forward. This is all Marketing Strategies to make the Trade-Secret look big, and honestly, who knows what has been mixed – admixed, Yet, this is my theory since the beginning. Ne’er Mind!
Coming back to the Markush again! Thus, you’ve this one Markus CORE! And then you’ve different Variations, Positions, Frequencies, and, Variables attached to it which sends my dilemma to a parallel universe.
Of course, more than me, A Chemistry Scholar would be able to explain you far better and in far better terms, conditions, and, examples, than what I’ve done hereinabove. YET, if we are taking the legal context of the same, then, am I missing any Point? Do let me know so that I can UPGRADE myself and correct this blog! :)
© Pranav Chaturvedi
No comments:
Post a Comment