Author: Lisa L. Mueller

I am a Patent Attorney with Casimir Jones.

Can evidence created after the filing date be used to show inventive step? Questions referred to the European Patent Office’s authority of highest instance

Lisa L. Mueller November 8, 2021

The European Patent Office (EPO) is a first-to-file system. Often times, this means that applicants have to file their European patent applications with little or no experimental data to support the inventive property of the invention. This is particularly true in the biotech, pharmaceutical and agrochemical fields. In these fields and in the chemical field in more general, the well-known ‘publish-or-perish’ drive causes some applicants to rush to file their patent applications; for others, the time it takes to put together the experimental data for filing in the first place cannot always be reconciled with the need to file the patent application as soon as possible. Indeed, there are certain inventions, e.g., the new use of a known active ingredient to treat or prevent a certain condition, or an unexpectedly synergistic combination of active compounds, that may require some experimental data to support the inventive property.

In these situations, applicants may try to use experimental evidence created after the filing date of the European patent application or European patent (e.g., such as in an opposition) to show the inventive property, and/or to complete the data relating to the inventive property that is already contained in the European patent application as filed. The evidence may be in the form of scientific articles or research papers published by the inventors or their research teams, which contain the results of tests performed on the invention and show that the invention has a certain property, as long as that property is unexpected in view of the prior art but is already at least hinted at in the European patent application as filed.

The EPO’s authority of highest instance, i.e. the Enlarged Board of Appeal, has now received a referral on precisely this issue – whether and when evidence created after the filing date of a European patent application or European patent can be used to show inventive step.

The case that generated the referral relates to an opposition filed against EP2484209B1 relating to a synergistic insecticidal combination. In that case, the patent owner (Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd.) submitted experimental evidence generated after the patent’s filing date to show that the asserted synergy did arise from the claimed combinations. The opponent (Syngenta Ltd.) argued that that particular synergy had not been made plausible in the European application as filed, and thus the experimental evidence could not be taken into consideration.

The EPO Board of Appeal observed that at present there seem to be three lines of case law at the EPO tying the concept of “plausibility” to inventive step (i.e. non-obviousness):

A first line of case law, on ab initio plausibility, whereby evidence created after the filing date can only be used to show inventive step if the property conferring inventive step to the claimed subject-matter was already plausible from the content of the European patent application as filed and/or from common general knowledge at the filing date;
A second line of case law, on ab initio implausibility, whereby evidence created after the filing date can always be used to show inventive step unless the property conferring inventive step to the claimed subject-matter is implausible based on the content of the European patent application as filed and/or on common general knowledge at the filing date;
A third line of case law, on no plausibility, whereby evidence created after the filing date can be used to show inventive step irrespective of whether the property conferring inventive step to the claimed subject-matter was already plausible from the content of the European patent application as filed and/or from common general knowledge at the filing date.

The Board of Appeal noted that each of these lines of case law leads to different and even opposing results, and it is therefore essential for the EPO’s authority of highest instance, i.e. the Enlarged Board of Appeal, to provide guidance. The Board of Appeal also noted that there has been some discussion, in the EPO and UK case law and in certain scholarly writings, on whether a requirement of plausibility is actually enshrined in the European Patent Convention or whether it is instead “court-invented”.

Therefore, the Board of Appeal referred the following questions to the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal:

“If for acknowledgement of inventive step the patent proprietor relies on a technical effect and has submitted evidence, such as experimental data, to prove such an effect, this evidence not having been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and having been filed after that date (post-published evidence):

1. Should an exception to the principle of free evaluation of evidence … be accepted in that post-published evidence must be disregarded on the ground that the proof of the effect rests exclusively on the post-published evidence?

2. If the answer is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have considered the effect plausible (ab initio plausibility)?

3. If the answer to the first question is yes (the post-published evidence must be disregarded if the proof of the effect rests exclusively on this evidence), can the post-published evidence be taken into consideration if, based on the information in the patent application in suit or the common general knowledge, the skilled person at the filing date of the patent application in suit would have seen no reason to consider the effect implausible (ab initio implausibility)?”

The Enlarged Board of Appeal will now have to decide whether the referral is admissible in the first place. If it is, we should expect a multitude of amicus curiae briefs trying to persuade the Enlarged Board of Appeal one way or another, as the referred questions clearly relate to a high-stakes issue in many fields of technology. If the referral is admissible, a decision may take anywhere from about 6 months to two years or more.

Please continue to watch BRICS & Beyond for updates on this important case.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Micaela Modiano of Modiano & Partners.

Compulsory Licensing in Brazil: Updates and Perspectives

Lisa L. Mueller August 17, 2021

On August 11, 2021, the Brazilian Senate approved a Compulsory Licensing Bill (#12/2021). Bill #12/21 amends the Brazilian Patent Statute (Law #9,279/96) and authorizes the Federal Government to grant compulsory licenses for products or processes in the event of a declaration of national or international emergency of public interest or a declaration of state of nationwide public calamity.

On August 13, 2021, the Bill approved by the Senate was sent to the President for approval or veto. The President may either (i) enact the Bill into law without changes; (ii) partially enact the Bill and veto one or more other portions of the Bill; or (iii) veto the entire Bill. The deadline for the President to enact or veto the bill is September 2, 2021. If the Bill is vetoed, State Representatives and Senators can override the presidential veto with a majority vote.

The final version indicates that the Senate brought back into the Bill provisions specifically regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the obligation of the patent holder to provide information to the public authorities regarding its patents and patent applications. Specifically, Paragraph 8 states that the authorities must be provided “necessary and sufficient information for the effective reproduction of the subject matter protected by the patent or patent application and the other technical aspects applicable to the specific case, as well as the results of tests and other data necessary for the granting of its registration by the competent authorities”.

Additionally, readers should also be aware of the provisions in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Bill, which were also brought back by the Senate. Specifically, Paragraph 9 provides that in situations where there is biological material related to the production of a patent or patent application’s object (e.g., product), the owner “has the obligation to supply such material to the licensee”. Further, Paragraph 10 establishes that if there is a refusal to provide the information or biological material, “article 24 and Title I, Chapter VI, of this Statute shall apply”.

Article 24 of the Brazilian Patent Statute states:

Article 24. The specification must describe the subject matter clearly and sufficiently so as to enable a person skilled in the art to carry it out and to indicate, when applicable, the best mode of execution.

Sole Paragraph. In the case of biological material essential for the practical execution of the subject matter of the application, which cannot be described in the form of this article and which has not been accessible to the public, the specification will be supplemented by a deposit of the material in an institution authorized by the BRPTO or indicated in an international agreement.

Title I, Chapter VI provides the General Provisions for the nullification of a patent. Articles 46 to 49 of this chapter do not provide any specific procedure or situation in which compulsory licensing applies. Specifically, Articles 46 to 49 recite:

Article 46. A patent is null when granted contrary to the provisions of this statute.

Article 47. Nullity may not be applicable to all of the claims, a condition for partial nullity being that the subsisting claims constitute subject matter that is patentable per se.

Article 48. Nullity of a patent will produce effects as from the filing date of the application.

Article 49. In the case of the provisions of article 6 not having been observed, the inventor may alternatively claim, in a court action, the adjudication of the patent.

In the previous versions of the Bill, there was an excerpt in Paragraph 8 that a nullity action could be invoked in situations where the patent holder did not provide the biological material requested by the public entity. However, in the final version of the Bill, the wording was modified to exclude this excerpt, because it was determined to potentially contradict the Brazilian Patent Statute. Thus, the reference to the nullification of a patent remains only indirectly in the Bill’s text in the provision of Paragraph 10, by quoting Title I, Chapter VI of the Patent Statute.

Below is a summary of the Bill:

The Brazilian Executive Branch must publish, within 30 days after the declaration date of a state of emergency or public calamity, a list of patents or patent applications involving technologies which may be useful to manage the emergency or calamity. There is an exception for patents or patent applications that are subject to a technology transfer agreement or voluntary licensing agreement that are capable of ensuring that internal demand is satisfied;

The Brazilian Executive Branch will perform, within 30 days (which is extendable for an equal period of time), an individualized evaluation of the listed technologies and will grant compulsory licenses only to those manufacturers having the requisite ability to meet production capacity;

The patent or patent application holder must provide information regarding the reproduction of the protected subject matter and other applicable technical aspects, as well as tests results and other necessary data (this could include trade secret data);

The Brazilian Congress may declare a nationwide public calamity that authorizes the Executive Branch to conduct a compulsory licensing procedure. In such instances, any compulsory license will be valid for a term that is limited to the period in which the nationwide public calamity lasts;

The owner of a patent or patent application subject to a compulsory license will receive 1.5% of the net sales price of the product associated until the compensation due to the patent holder is effectively established. Compensation will only be payable on granted patents (and not pending applications);

The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office will prioritize the examination of patent applications that are subject to compulsory licensing;

Products subject to the sanitary surveillance regime may only be marketed after authorization has been granted by Brazilian Food and Drug Administration, whether for an emergency basis or permanent basis;

Regardless of the granting of a compulsory license grant, the government will prioritize the execution of technical cooperation agreements and contracts with the patent owner for the acquisition of the productive technology as well as any processes for transferring the technology; and

For humanitarian reasons, compulsory licensing may be granted for patents on products intended to be exported to countries with little to no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector.

The next few days will be critical in the development of the final text of the Bill. Ultimately, the final text of the Bill will depend on the President’s analysis.

BRICS & Beyond will continue to provide updates on the status of the Bill as they become available.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Rob Rodrigues and Ana Luiza Calil of Licks Attorneys.

Uncategorized

The European Patent Office issues a landmark decision on double patenting

Lisa L. Mueller July 20, 2021

The European Patent Convention (EPC) does not contain any specific provisions regarding the possibility of the same applicant obtaining two European patents for the same invention. As a result, and in the past, the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) have issued decisions taking varying and sometimes conflicting positions regarding the issue of double patenting.

These conflicting positions culminated in a decision by the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (the EPO’s authority of highest instance) on June 22, 2021, holding that the EPC must be interpreted as precluding the possibility for the same applicant to obtain two European patents for the same invention in the same EPC states. A copy of the decision can be found here:

Decision Download

In the decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) had to answer the following main question:

“Can a European patent application be refused … if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which was granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art [for the European patent application]?”

The EBA reviewed the EPC, as well as the preparatory works that had resulted in the creation of the EPC following a diplomatic conference of the EPC “founding” states, and concluded that even though the EPC does not contain an explicit provision regarding double patenting, the preparatory works demonstrated that the majority of the EPC “founding” states supported the notion that no two (or more) European patents should be granted to the same applicant for the same invention for the same EPC states, if those European patents claim the same filing or priority date.

Thus, the EBA found that “[a] European patent application can be refused [in examination] if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art [for the European patent application].”

In its decision, the EBA clarified that the above finding applies to:

Parent and divisional applications filed at the EPO;
European patent applications claiming the same priority (e.g., from a national patent application);
European patent applications claiming priority from an earlier European patent application; and
European patent applications having the same filing date.

The EBA further clarified that the above finding means that the EPO can raise an objection against a European patent application that falls within one of the above categories during examination. However, the EBA did not address the question of whether this objection could be raised in an opposition proceeding (this question went beyond the scope of the questions referred to the EBA in this case).

The EBA further clarified that the prohibition against double patenting applies only to European patent applications designating the same EPC states. Thus, if an already-granted European patent designates only certain EPC states and the still-pending European application designates other EPC states, then the double patenting prohibition does not apply.

Finally, the EBA did not expressly address or review the definition of “same invention” for the simple reason that the claims in the granted European patent that resulted in the referral to the EBA and the claims of the pending European application were completely (i.e., 100%) identical. It is worth noting that previous case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal established that claims with overlapping scope, but not identical scope, were not considered to be directed at the “same invention”.

The EBA’s decision finally clarifies a point of law that had remained open and was highly debated for several decades. As a result, Applicants should consider this important decision when filing and prosecuting divisional applications in the EPO.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Micaela Modiano of Modiano & Partners

Venezuela

Venezuelan Patent and Trademark Office issues the first notice of allowances in pharmaceutical patent applications since 2004

Lisa L. Mueller May 21, 2021

The Venezuelan Patent and Trademark Office (VPTO) has issued the first notice of allowances (NOA) in pending patent applications directed to pharmaceutical inventions since 2004. At least two patent applications have received NOAs pursuant to Article 27.1 of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Specifically, Article 27.1 of TRIPS recites:

Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Subject to paragraph 4 of Article 65, paragraph 8 of Article 70 and paragraph 3 of this Article, patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and whether products are imported or locally produced.

In November 2020, the VPTO announced that they would immediately begin to recognize the direct and preferred applicability of the TRIPS agreement and Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property over Venezuelan national legislation.

The two patent applications for which NOAs have issued are owned by Sanofi Aventis (Sanofi). Both applications claim the use of a certain compound to produce a medicament for the treatment of a certain disease and claim priority to French patent applications filed in 2007. Assuming Sanofi pays the final registration fees before August 18, 2021, the patents will have a term of 10 years from the grant date of May 24, 2021. It is important to emphasize that neither of the allowed applications contain product claims but only medical use claims.

Invalidation actions can be initiated during the two years following the issue date of the NOAs. Patent owners are required to provide evidence of practicing their patent (e.g., working) within two years following the date of grant, otherwise the patent can be declared to have lapsed.

Currently, Venezuela’s patent law does not contain mechanisms such as patent term extension or Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs).

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Sebastian Gonzalez Yanes of Pi360 Legal

Brazilian generic companies file a “tsunami” of lawsuits against several pharmaceutical companies in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 10-year patent term

Lisa L. Mueller May 12, 2021

Last night, several generic companies in Brazil filed lawsuits against patents held by pharmaceutical companies. Specifically, 46 identical lawsuits were filed 46 targeting 79 patents. The cases challenge the patent term awarded by the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BRPTO) based on Article 40, sole paragraph, of the Intellectual Property Statute. As readers are aware, Article 40 was held unconstitutional by Brazil’s Supreme Court last week; however, as mentioned in our post of May 7, 2021, a decision on whether the ruling should apply retroactively to reach patents already granted by the BRPTO prior to the preliminary injunction granted by Justice Toffoli (see our post of April 8, 2021) was postponed until today, May 12, 2021.

The 11 Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to discuss and decide later this afternoon whether to apply Justice Toffoli’s proposal to retroactively apply the decision of unconstitutionality to reduce the terms of patents: (i) directed to pharmaceuticals (including products and medical devices); and/or (ii) that have been challenged based on the unconstitutionality of Article 40, sole paragraph, prior to the publication of the Supreme Court’s final decision (which would also include non-pharma patents).

Some of the impacted companies: Amgen (2 lawsuits); GlaxoSmithKline (2 lawsuits); Novartis (4 lawsuits); Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim (3 lawsuits each); Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (2 lawsuits); Astrazeneca (2 lawsuits); Cipla; Daiichi Sankyo; Incyte; Les Laboires Servier; Novo Nordisk (2 lawsuits); Onyx Therapeutics; Pfizer (3 lawsuits); Pharmacyclics; Takeda and Shire

Each lawsuit challenges patents from the portfolio of specific products, such as: Repatha® (evolocumab), Nucala® (mepolizumab), Entyvio® (vedolizumab), Xvega® (denosumab), Brilinta® (ticagrelor), Xarelto® (rivaroxaban), Vyvanse® (lisdexamfetamine), Xalkori® (crizotinib), Latuda® (lurasidone), Ibrance® (palbociclib)

Please continue to watch BRICS & Beyond for continued updates on the Supreme Court decision and the Brazilian landscape post-constitutional challenge.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and by Rob Rodrigues and Brenno Telles from Licks Attorneys

Brazilian Supreme Court holds that the 10-Year Patent Term in Brazil is Unconstitutional

Lisa L. Mueller May 7, 2021

This is an update to our posts on April 8, 2021, March 15, 2021 and March 10, 2021. As readers are aware, the Brazilian Supreme Court was scheduled to decide the constitutional challenge involving Article 40 of the Brazilian Intellectual Property (IP) Statute (ADI 5529), on April 7, 2021; however, the hearing was delayed due to a discussion in another case.

Yesterday, the Brazilian Supreme Court issued its decision, with a majority holding the 10-year patent term unconstitutional (Article 40, sole paragraph). Nine Justices issued opinions stating that 10-year patent term, even in view of the backlog of patent applications waiting to be examined at the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BRPTO), violates the country’s Constitution. The Justices also decided that the general provision of 20 years from the date of filing provides a suitable and sufficient term of protection for patent owners.

The decision was based on 5 reasons that can be summarized as it follows. Specifically, according to the Court, the challenged provision:

Constitutes a “term extension” that affords disproportionate protection to patent owners;
Undermines the temporary nature of a patent as provided by the Brazilian Constitution;
Provides automatic compensation to an applicant without assessing the applicant’s responsibility in contributing to the delay in examination;
Finds no parallel in any other IP regimes abroad (namely, the fact that patents automatically receive a patent term of 10-years from the date of grant); and
Raises drug prices in the Brazilian market by creating monopolies thereby impacting society’s access to drugs and public health social policies.

Justice Barroso, followed by Chief Justice Fux, issued dissenting opinions, arguing that pending patent applications do not provide any type of protection for patent owners, therefore, there is no protection prior to grant. Only granted patents provide protection. In their view, if patent owners are not provided a 10-year patent term, they might not have sufficient term to protect their inventions. Additionally, Justice Barroso stated that if the BRPTO is examining applications at a faster rate as a result of the backlog combat plan, the 10-year patent term will soon be unnecessary and would not need to be declared unconstitutional or revoked. Therefore, in his opinion, Congress should focus on improving the BRPTO.

Chief Justice Fux also stated that it was necessary to observe the consequences of the decision and its impact in the economy.

Is the Decision Retroactive?

The Supreme Court will decide next week whether the decision applies retroactively. Justice Toffoli is proposing not to apply the decision retroactively to all patents issued before the publication of the final decision with two notable exceptions. Specifically, under Justice Toffoli’s proposal, the decision would be retroactive for: (i) patents directed to pharmaceuticals (including both products and medical devices); and (ii) in specific cases where the constitutionality of Article 40 was argued in lawsuits already in progress (which would include non-pharma patents). However, several of the Justices expressed concern that the decision should not be retroactive or should be tailored only to pandemic related products (versus all pharmaceutical products).

After some debate, the Justices decided to postpone a final decision on the retroactive effect of its decision until Wednesday, May 12^th session.

Please continue to watch BRICS & Beyond for continued updates on the Supreme Court decision.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and by Rob Rodrigues and Luisa Saraiva from Licks Attorneys

Kuwait

Patent Examination Finally Begins in the Kuwaiti Patent Office

Lisa L. Mueller April 15, 2021

In a long awaited development, the Kuwaiti Patent Office (KPO) has finally initiated substantive examination of patent applications and is issuing search and examination reports on pending applications. Nonetheless, given that substantive examination is new in Kuwait, the process has started out rather slowly but is expected to increase as the KPO becomes more accustomed to conducting formal examination. Moreover, in the January 2021 Official Gazette, the KPO published two granted patents, which were the first two patents granted in Kuwait. Finally, laws and regulations are in place in Kuwait for the complete prosecution of patent applications from filing to grant.

This news regarding the start of substantive examination is welcomed, particularly given the concern raised by many innovators on the ability to seek patent protection in Kuwait after the regional GCC Patent Office issued a notification to stop accepting new patent applications as of January 6, 2021.

By way of background, in April 2016, the KPO adopted the GCC Patent Law and regulations as its current law and regulations. However, in July 2016, Kuwait acceded to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which entered into force in September of the same year.

Currently, the KPO is working through an existing backlog of pending applications. Applicants should expect that their pending Kuwaiti patent applications will be examined and final decisions issued thereafter in due course. Under the local regulations, Applicants will have a non-extendable period three months from the date of any notification from the KPO to correct any formal defects in their applications.

It is expected that the KPO’s efforts to develop the national system and streamline the registration process of patent applications will help promote local innovation and attract foreign patent applicants to protect their inventions in Kuwait.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and Namir Sioufi of Saba IP.

Update on the Constitutional Challenges to the 10-Year Patent Term in Brazil

Lisa L. Mueller April 8, 2021

This is an update to our posts on March 15, 2021 and March 10, 2021. As readers are aware, the Brazilian Supreme Court was scheduled to decide the constitutional challenge involving Article 40 of the Brazilian Intellectual Property (IP) Statute (ADI 5529) yesterday, on April 7, 2021. Unfortunately, the patent term hearing did not take place because the agenda of the Supreme Court was delayed due to discussion in another case. A new hearing is scheduled for April 14, 2021.

After the Supreme Court announced the new hearing date, Justice Toffoli partially granted the preliminary injunction (PI) requested by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (FPO) to suspend the effect of the 10-year patent term for pharmaceuticals effective immediately until the Supreme Court’s final ruling. Justice Toffoli’s decision does not mention TRIPS Article 27.1 (non-discrimination) or its impact on the case – which is a relevant omission, as the PI is restricted to one sector (pharmaceuticals). Justice Toffoli’s decision is heavily anti-patent and confusing regarding its impact. While the PI is not retroactive by law, the opinion does provide for the possibility of retroactive effect for pharmaceutical patents if there is a pending invalidity challenge based on constitutional grounds related to ADI 5529.

BRICS & Beyond is preparing a detailed analysis on Justice Toffoli’s decision and will post more information on this decision soon.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller and by Rob Rodrigues and Ana Luiza from Licks Attorneys

NIST’s Proposed Changes to Bayh-Dole Would Create Additional Burdens for Tech Transfer Offices

Lisa L. Mueller March 26, 2021

On January 4, 2021, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced that they are seeking comments on proposed changes to the regulations entitled, “Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned Inventions” that support the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, commonly known as the “Bayh-Dole Act”. Comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal using the docket identification number 201207-0327 and must be received no later than April 5, 2021. NIST held a public webinar on February 25, 2021, on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The proposed changes are intended to further the Return on Investment (ROI) Initiative for Unleashing American Innovation, which was published in April 2019.

As provided in the Federal Register, these proposed changes would:

make technical corrections;
reorganize certain subsections;
remove outdated and/or unnecessary sections;
institute a reporting requirement on Federal agencies; and
provide clarifications on definitions, communications, scope of march-in rights, filing of provisional patent applications, electronic filing, the purpose of royalties on government licenses, and the processes for granting exclusive, co-exclusive and partially exclusive licenses and for appeals.

The proposed changes related to the scope of march-in rights have received the most attention to date, and have been the subject of commentary in trade journals, blog posts, law firm alerts, and from AUTM CEO Stephen Susalka. Briefly, these proposed changes would clarify 37 CFR § 401.6 to include a provision that march-in rights would not be exercised by an agency exclusively on the basis of business decisions of a contractor regarding the pricing of commercial goods and services arising from the practical application of an invention.

This post, however, will focus on changes related to the filing of provisional patent applications. The proposed revisions to 37 CFR § 401 will, in part:

update the definitions of a patent application and initial patent application in § 401.2(m) and (n) to encompass U.S. provisional and nonprovisional applications, applications filed in a foreign country or international patent office directly, PCT applications, and applications for Plant Variety Protection certificates; and
revise § 401.14(c)(3) to clarify the procedures for filing more than one provisional patent application on a disclosed subject invention

More particularly, 37 CFR § 401(m) and (n) would be revised to read as follows (changes from the previous version are shown with additions underlined and deletions in brackets):

(m) The term patent application or ‘‘application for patent’’ [includes a provisional or nonprovisional U.S. national application for patent as defined in 37 CFR 1.9 (a)(2) and (a)(3), respectively,] may be the following: (1) A United States provisional application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(2) and filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); or (2) A United States nonprovisional application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(3) and filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a); or (3) A[n] patent application [for patent] filed in a foreign country or an international patent office; or (4) A patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(b) which designates the United States; or (5) An application for a Plant Variety Protection certificate.

(n) The term initial patent application means, as to a given subject invention[,]: (1) T[t]he first United States provisional [or non-provisional U.S. national] application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(2) [and (3), respectively,] and filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(b); or (2) The first United States nonprovisional application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(3) and filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a); or (3) The first patent application filed in a foreign country or an international patent office; or (4) The first [international] patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(b) which designates the United States[;], or (5) The first application for a Plant Variety Protection certificate [, as applicable].

The changes to 37 CFR § 401.14, however, would have the most potential impact on operating procedures for technology transfer offices and in-house and outside counsel. The revisions to 37 CFR § 401.14(3) include (changes from the previous version are shown with additions underlined and deletions in brackets):

(i) The contractor will file its initial patent application on a subject invention to which it elects to retain title within one year after election of title or, if earlier, prior to the end of any statutory period wherein valid patent protection can be obtained in the United States after a publication, on sale, or public use. Subject to the grant of an extension by an agency under paragraph (c)(5) of this clause, if the contractor files a provisional application as its initial patent application, it shall file a non-provisional application within 10 months of the filing of the provisional application. (ii) Each provisional application filed following the initial patent application must contain additional written description of the subject invention not previously disclosed in a patent application. The contractor shall file or notify the government that they do not intend to file a non-provisional application within 10 months of the last filed provisional application that is consistent with this section. (iii) The contractor will file patent applications in additional countries or international patent offices within either ten months of the first filed patent application or six months from the date permission is granted by the Commissioner of Patents to file foreign patent applications where such filing has been prohibited by a Secrecy Order. (iv) If required by the Federal agency, the contractor will provide the filing date, patent application number and title; a copy of the patent application; and patent number and issue date for any subject invention in any country in which the contractor has applied for a patent.

Of particular concern are the proposed revisions under 37 CFR § 401.14(3)(ii), which provide that “each provisional application filed following the initial patent application must contain additional written description of the subject invention not previously disclosed in a patent application.” (emphasis added). The proposed revision does not define what is meant by “additional written description” or what, at a minimum ,would be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Does “additional written description” require inclusion of additional features and/or embodiments not previously disclosed in the initial patent application or would merely revising a paragraph disclosed in the initial patent application to add further clarifications or discussion about the invention be sufficient?

In practice, it is not uncommon to abandon a first filed provisional application, either expressly or naturally by not filing a non-provisional application on or before the one-year anniversary of the priority date. This strategy often is adopted when sufficient progress has not been made on the invention to merit the filing of a non-provisional application and no public disclosure has occurred or to delay the expense of preparing and filing a non-provisional application or the start of potential patent term. In these circumstances, the first filed provisional application is often refiled “as is” one day after abandonment.

Under the proposed changes, however, any provisional applications filed after the initial patent application would need to contain additional written description of the invention that was not contained in the previously filed application. In practice, however, this is often not the case and would create additional burdens on technology transfer offices and their counsel regarding what would be sufficient to constitute “additional written description.” For example, if sufficient progress has not been made on an invention during the provisional filing year, the inventor, technology transfer office and their counsel will need to spend precious time and resources determining what additional written description would or could be needed to be added to the application. This begs the question of whether the time and resources being expended on trying to find additional (and sufficient) written description for refiling a provisional might be better spent on assisting an inventor on making progress with his or her invention and developing a patent filing strategy consistent with the current state of the research and potential licensing opportunities.

Also of concern is the provision under 37 CFR § 401.14(3)(ii) that “[t]he contractor shall file or notify the government that they do not intend to file a non-provisional application within 10 months of the last filed provisional application that is consistent with this section.” (emphasis added). This provision seems to be inconsistent with 37 CFR § 401.14(3)(i), which provides that “if the contractor files a provisional application as its initial patent application, it shall file a non-provisional application within 10 months of the filing of the provisional application.”

In practice, it is not uncommon to file more than one provisional application during the one-year pendency of the initial patent application, e.g., the first filed provisional application. This strategy often is referred to as “rolling provisionals,” or “serial provisionals” in which new data, additional description, and potentially new claims, are added to the first filed provisional application as the inventor(s) generate new experimental results. Under this strategy, a non-provisional application is filed on or before the one-year anniversary of the filing date of the first filed provisional application, including all of the subject matter included in any subsequently filed provisional application in this series.

Under the proposed changes, however, the contractor would need to file a non-provisional application or notify the government that they do not intend to file a non-provisional application within 10 months of the last filed provisional application. In practice, this most likely would never be the case as the decision to file a non-provisional application is based on the filing date of the first filed provisional application not the last. Further, filing a non-provisional application based on the filing date of the last provisional application would run counter to the definition of the “first application” as provided Article 4(c)(4) of the Paris Convention. This inconsistency should be addressed by the rulemaking body.

Finally, in the public webinar conducted by NIST, slide 21 provides that revisions to 37 CFR § 401.14(c)(3) include that “the filing of serial provisional applications on the same subject invention – must be approved by agency, ….” (emphasis added). This language, however, is not mentioned in the materials published in the Federal Register. To our knowledge, agency approval to file a patent application has not been required by previous regulations and the filing of a patent application has been at the discretion of the contractor, e.g., the tech transfer office. If adopted, this language would place additional burdens on technology transfer offices and would be impractical as provisional filings typically must be made in a timely manner, for example, prior to a public disclosure. It is unlikely that approval from the funding agency could be received before the provisional application would need to be filed prior to such disclosure, which could result in the forfeiture of foreign patent rights and negatively impact the commercial value of the invention. This approach would run counter to the express goals of the Bayh-Dole Act.

Please continue to watch BRICS & Beyond for updates on the proposed changes to the Bayh-Doyle Act.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller & Jeff Childers.

Impossible™ Foods: Protecting Plant-Based Meat Substitutes having the Aroma and Flavor of Meat

Lisa L. Mueller March 20, 2021

In 2011, Impossible™ Foods (Impossible) was founded with the aim of providing meat products with the taste and nutritional benefits of meat but without the negative health and environmental impacts. In 2016, Impossible™ launched its first product, the Impossible™ burger, which is available in restaurants (e.g., Burger King®) and grocery stores. The four main ingredients in the Impossible™ burger are protein (soy and potato proteins), fat (coconut and sunflower oils), binders (methylcelluloses) and flavor (a heme, specifically, soy leghemoglobin). As discussed in more detail below, Impossible™ discovered that heme is the key ingredient that provides meat with its aroma and flavor.

Impossible™ discovered that certain characteristics of meaty flavors (e.g., beef, bacon, umami, savory, blood, etc.) produced during the cooking process were the result of a chemical reaction between flavor precursor molecules and iron complexes. As a result of this discovery, Impossible™ combined flavor precursor molecules and iron complexes to produce consumable food products having a range of savory and meaty aromas and tastes.

The flavor precursor molecules that can be used in these products can be sugars, sugar alcohols, sugar acids, sugar derivatives (e.g., glucose, fructose, ribose, sucrose, etc.), oils (e.g., coconut oil, mango oil, sunflower oil, cottonseed oil, etc.), free fatty acids (e.g., caprylic acid, capric acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, oleic acid, etc.), amino acids and derivatives thereof (e.g., cysteine, cystine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, etc.), nucleosides and nucleotides (e.g., inosine, guanosine, adenosine, etc.), vitamins (e.g., vitamin D, vitamin B6, vitamin E), acids (e.g., acetic acid, alpha hydroxy acids, tricarboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, etc.), peptides and protein hydrolysates (e.g., glutathione, vegetable protein hydrolysates, etc.), or extracts (e.g., malt extracts, yeast extract, etc.).

The iron complexes that can be used can be a heme moiety or other highly conjugated heterocyclic ring complexed to an iron ion. Specifically, the heme moiety can be a heme cofactor, such as a heme-containing protein. Heme-containing proteins include globins, such as soy leghemoglobin, which is currently used in the Impossible™ burger.

It is not surprising that Impossible™ filed for patent protection covering food products containing these iron complexes having the flavor and aroma of meat. This post examines one patent family owned by Impossible™ covering these food products. Specifically, this post compares the issued claims granted in Australia, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the United States (U.S.).

Australia

Australia Patent No. 2014205114B2

1. A ground beef-like food product, comprising:

a) 1% – 5% by weight of a heme-containing protein;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 1.5 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

d) one or more plant proteins;

wherein the ground beef-like food product contains no animal product;

wherein cooking the ground beef-like food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds which have a beef-associated aroma.

Australia Patent No. 2018200969B2 (Divisional of Australia Patent No. 2014205114B2)

1. A meat substitute comprising:

a) a porphyrin or a chlorin complexed to an iron ion; and

b) one or more flavor precursor molecules selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, ribose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose 6-phosphate, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, maltose, galactose, lactose, xylose, sucrose, maltodextrin, thiamine, cysteine, cystine, a cysteine sulfoxide, allicin, selenocysteine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, 5-hydroxytryptophan, valine, arginine, histidine, alanine, asparagine, aspartate, glutamate, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine and tyrosine;

wherein cooking imparts a taste and smell of meat to the meat substitute; and

wherein said porphyrin or a chlorin complexed to an iron ion is ferrous chlorin.

Europe

EP Patent No. 2943072B1

1. A meat substitute comprising:

a) a heme-containing protein; and

b) at least two flavor precursor molecules selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, ribose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose 6-phosphate, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, maltose, galactose, lactose, xylose, sucrose, maltodextrin, thiamine, cysteine, cystine, a cysteine sulfoxide, allicin, selenocysteine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, 5-hydroxytryptophan, valine, arginine, histidine, alanine, asparagine, aspartate, glutamate, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine and tyrosine;

wherein a taste and smell of meat is given to the meat substitute during the cooking process.

Note: claim 1 as shown above is the claim as granted. EP Patent No. 2943072B1 is currently subject of an opposition, the claims as granted may change as a result of the opposition procedure.

Japan

Japanese Patent No. 6553516B2

1. A food product which, when cooked, reproduces the taste of meat products, comprising:

a) 1% to 1% (w/v) of a heme-containing protein;

b) sugars, sugar alcohols, sugar acids or sugar derivatives selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphoric acid, maltose, galactose, and mixtures of two or more of these;

c) a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, thiamine, and mixtures of 2 or more of these; and

d) one or more plant proteins.

Russia

Russian Patent No. 2701852C2

1. A meat analog containing:

a) a highly conjugated heterocyclic ring complexed with an iron ion; and

b) one or more taste precursor molecules selected from the group consisting of: glucose, fructose, ribose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose-6-phosphate, fructose-1,6-diphosphate, inositol, maltose, sucrose, maltodextrin, glycogen, nucleotide bound sugars, molasses, lecithin, inosine, inosine monophosphate (IMP), guanosine monophosphate (HMP), pyrazine, adenosine monophosphate (AMP), lactic acid, succinic acid, glycolic acid, thiamine , creatine, pyrophosphate, algae oil, safflower oil, linseed oil, rice oil, cottonseed oil, coconut oil, mango oil, cysteine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, arginine, histidine, alanine, asparagine, aspartate, glutamate, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine, tyrosine, glutathione, an amino acid derivative, protein hydrolysate, malt extract, yeast extract, and peptone.

United States

U.S. Patent No. 9,700,067B2

1. A ground beef-like food product comprising:

a) 1%-5% by weight of a heme-containing protein comprising an amino acid sequence having at least 80% sequence identity to the polypeptide set forth in SEQ ID NO:4;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 10 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

d) 10% or more by weight of one or more plant proteins;

wherein the ground beef-like food product contains no animal products; and

wherein cooking the ground beef-like food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds which have a beef-associated aroma.

U.S. Patent No. 9,808,029B2 (Continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096B2)

1. A ground beef-like food product, comprising:

a) 01%-5% by weight of a heme-containing protein;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 1.5 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof, and

d) one or more plant proteins;

wherein the ground beef-like food product contains no animal product; and

wherein cooking the ground beef-like food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds which have a beef-associated aroma.

U.S. Patent No. 9,826,772B2 (Continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096B2)

1. A ground beef-like food product, comprising:

a) 1%-5% by weight of a heme-containing protein;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 10 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

d) one or more plant proteins;

wherein the ground beef-like food product contains no animal product; and

wherein cooking the ground beef-like food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds which have a beef-associated aroma.

U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096B2 (continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,700,067B2)

1. A food flavor additive composition comprising:

a) an isolated heme-containing protein;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, maltodextrin, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

c) a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

wherein the flavor additive composition contains no animal products; and

wherein cooking the food flavor additive composition results in the production of at least two volatile compounds which have a meat-associated aroma.

U.S. Patent No. 10,314,325B2 (Continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096B2)

1. A food product, comprising:

a) a heme, wherein the heme is present in an amount equivalent to the amount of heme present in the food product when the food product contains a heme-containing protein in an amount of 0.01% to 5% by weight;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 1.5 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

d) one or more plant proteins;

wherein the food product contains no animal product; and

wherein cooking the food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds selected from the group consisting of (1-ethyl-1-propenyl)-benzene, (E)-2-decenal, (E)-2-heptenal, (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-nonenal, (E)-2-octen-1-ol, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-tridecen-1-ol, (E)-3-penten-2-one, (E)-4-octene, (E)-5-decene, (E,E)-3,5-octadien-2-one, (Z)-2-decenal, (Z)-2-heptenal, (Z)-3-decen-1-ol, acetate, [(methyl sulfonyl)methyl]-benzene, 1-(ethylthio)-2-(methylthio)-buta-1,3-diene, 1-(methylthio)-propane, 1,1′-(1,2-cyclobutanediyl)bis-cis-benzene, 1,10-undecadiene, 1,3,5-cycloheptatriene, 1,3-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-benzene, 1,3-diisopropoxy-1,3-dimethyl-1,3-disilacyclobutane, 1,3-dimethyl-benzene, 1-decen-3-one, 1-heptanol, 1-heptyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4-methyl-naphthalene, 1-hexanol, 1-hydroxy-2-propanone, 1-nonanol, 1-octanol, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-octen-3-one, 1-octene, 1-pentanol, 1-penten-3-one, 1-undecanol, 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-heptane, 2,3,4-trimethyl-pentane, 2,3-butanedione, 2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-furan, 2,3-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2,4-decadienal, 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptene, 2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2-acetatyl-1-propene, 2-acetyl-propen-2-ol, 2-acetylthiazole, 2-butanone, 2-butenal, 2-butyl-1-decene, 2-decanone, 2-decenal, 2-ethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine, 2-ethylacrolein, 2-ethyl-furan, 2-heptanone, 2-heptenal, 2-hexyl furan, 2-methyl-1(H)-pyrrole, 2-methyl-1-heptene, 2-methyl-1-penten-1-one, 2-methyl-3-(methylthio) furan, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, 2-methyl-5-(methylthio)-furan, 2-methyl-butanal, 2-methyl-cyclopentanone, 2-methyl-furan, 2-methyl-heptane, 2-methyl-pentanal, 2-methyl-propanal, 2-methyl-thiazole, 2-n-octylfuran, 2-nonanone, 2-nonen-4-one, 2-octanone, 2-octenal, 2-pentanone, 2-pentyl-furan, 2-pentyl-thiophene, 2-phenylpropenal, 2-propenal, 2-propenoic acid, methyl ester, 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 2-tridecen-1-ol, 2-undecanone, 2-undecenal, 3-(methylthio)-propanenitrile, 3-(phenylmethyl)-2,5-piperazinedione, 3,3′-dithiobis-2-methyl-furan, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenol, 3,5-di-tert-butylbenzoic acid, 3-decen-2-one, 3-ethylcyclopentanone, 3-ethyl-pentane, 3-methyl-2-butenal, 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 3-methyl-3-buten-2-one, 3-methyl-butanal, 3-methyl-furan, 3-methylheptyl acetate, 3-methyl-pentanal, 3-pentyl-furan, 3-phenyl-furan, 3-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 3-thiophenemethanol, 4,7-dimethyl-undecane, 4-chloro-2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenol, 4-ethoxy-benzoic acid, ethyl ester, 4-ethyl-2-methyl-pyrrole, 4-ethyl-benzaldehyde, 4-methyl-2-heptanone, 4-methyl-5-thiazoleethanol, 4-methylthiazole, 4-nitrophenyl 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid ester, 4-penten-2-one, 4-quinolinecarboxaldehyde, 5-(2-chloroethyl)-4-methylthiazole, 5-ethenyl-4-methyl-thiazole, 5-ethyldihydro-2(3H)-furanone, 5-formyl-4-methylthiazole, 5-methyl-1-undecene, 6-methyl-2-heptanone, 7-methyl-(E)-5-undecene, 9-octadecenal, acetaldehyde, acetic acid, acetone, acetonitrile, acetophenone, acetyl valeryl, aminophenylacetylene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, bis(2-methyl-4,5-dihydro-3-furyl) disulfide, butanal, butanone, butyrolactone, carbon disulfide, decanal, dihydro-3-(2H)-thiophenone, dihydro-5-pentyl-2(3H)-furanone, dimethyl selenone, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, dodecanal, ethanol, ethyl acetate, formic acid, heptyl ester, furan, furfural, heptanal, hexanoic acid, isopropyl alcohol, isothiazole, isothiocyanato-methane, m-aminophenylacetylene, methacrolein, methanethiol, methional, methyl (methylthio)methyl disulfide, methyl isopropyl disulphide, methyl thiolacetate, methyl vinyl ketone, methyl-pyrazine, methyl-thiirane, nonanal, octanal, octane, oxalic acid, diallyl ester, oxalic acid, isobutyl pentyl ester, p-Cresol, p-dithiane-2,5-diol, pentanal, pentanoic acid, 2,2,4-trimethyl-3-hydroxy-, isobutyl ester, phenol, phenylacetaldehyde, propanal, propyl-cyclopropane, p-xylene, pyrazine, pyrrole, styrene, thiazole, thiocyanic acid, methyl ester, thiophene, toluene, trans-2-(2-pentenyl)furan, trichloromethane, and tridecane.

U.S. Patent No. 10,327,464B2 (Continuation of U.S. Patent No. 9,943,096B2)

1. A food product, comprising:

a) 01%-5% by weight of a heme-containing protein;

b) a compound selected from glucose, ribose, fructose, lactose, xylose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, maltose, and galactose, and mixtures of two or more thereof;

c) at least 1.5 mM of a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamine, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof; and

d) one or more plant proteins;

wherein the food product contains no animal products that contain heme; and

wherein cooking the food product results in the production of at least two volatile compounds selected from the group consisting of (1-ethyl-1-propenyl)-benzene, (E)-2-decenal, (E)-2-heptenal, (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-nonenal, (E)-2-octen-1-ol, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-tridecen-1-ol, (E)-3-penten-2-one, (E)-4-octene, (E)-5-decene, (E,E)-3,5-octadien-2-one, (Z)-2-decenal, (Z)-2-heptenal, (Z)-3-decen-1-ol, acetate, [(methylsulfonyl)methyl]-benzene, 1-(ethylthio)-2-(methylthio)-buta-1,3-diene, 1-(methylthio)-propane, 1,1′-(1,2-cyclobutanediyl)bis-cis-benzene, 1,10-undecadiene, 1,3,5-cycloheptatriene, 1,3-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-benzene, 1,3-diisopropoxy-1,3-dimethyl-1,3-disilacyclobutane, 1,3-dimethyl-benzene, 1-decen-3-one, 1-heptanol, 1-heptyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4-methyl-naphthalene, 1-hexanol, 1-hydroxy-2-propanone, 1-nonanol, 1-octanol, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-octen-3-one, 1-octene, 1-pentanol, 1-penten-3-one, 1-undecanol, 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-heptane, 2,3,4-trimethyl-pentane, 2,3-butanedione, 2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-furan, 2,3-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2,4-decadienal, 2,4-dimethyl-1-heptene, 2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2-acetatyl-1-propene, 2-acetyl-propen-2-ol, 2-acetylthiazole, 2-butanone, 2-butenal, 2-butyl-1-decene, 2-decanone, 2-decenal, 2-ethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine, 2-ethylacrolein, 2-ethyl-furan, 2-heptanone, 2-heptenal, 2-hexyl furan, 2-methyl-1(H)-pyrrole, 2-methyl-1-heptene, 2-methyl-1-penten-1-one, 2-methyl-3-(methylthio) furan, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, 2-methyl-5-(methylthio)-furan, 2-methyl-butanal, 2-methyl-cyclopentanone, 2-methyl-furan, 2-methyl-heptane, 2-methyl-pentanal, 2-methyl-propanal, 2-methyl-thiazole, 2-n-octylfuran, 2-nonanone, 2-nonen-4-one, 2-octanone, 2-octenal, 2-pentanone, 2-pentyl-furan, 2-pentyl-thiophene, 2-phenylpropenal, 2-propenal, 2-propenoic acid, methyl ester, 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 2-tridecen-1-ol, 2-undecanone, 2-undecenal, 3-(methylthio)-propanenitrile, 3-(phenylmethyl)-2,5-piperazinedione, 3,3′-dithiobis-2-methyl-furan, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenol, 3,5-di-tert-butylbenzoic acid, 3-decen-2-one, 3-ethylcyclopentanone, 3-ethyl-pentane, 3-methyl-2-butenal, 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 3-methyl-3-buten-2-one, 3-methyl-butanal, 3-methyl-furan, 3-methylheptyl acetate, 3-methyl-pentanal, 3-pentyl-furan, 3-phenyl-furan, 3-thiophenecarboxaldehyde, 3-thiophenemethanol, 4,7-dimethyl-undecane, 4-chloro-2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenol, 4-ethoxy-benzoic acid, ethyl ester, 4-ethyl-2-methyl-pyrrole, 4-ethyl-benzaldehyde, 4-methyl-2-heptanone, 4-methyl-5-thiazoleethanol, 4-methylthiazole, 4-nitrophenyl 2-thiophenecarboxylic acid ester, 4-penten-2-one, 4-quinolinecarboxaldehyde, 5-(2-chloroethyl)-4-methylthiazole, 5-ethenyl-4-methyl-thiazole, 5-ethyldihydro-2(3H)-furanone, 5-formyl-4-methylthiazole, 5-methyl-1-undecene, 6-methyl-2-heptanone, 7-methyl-(E)-5-undecene, 9-octadecenal, acetaldehyde, acetic acid, acetone, acetonitrile, acetophenone, acetyl valeryl, aminophenylacetylene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, bis(2-methyl-4,5-dihydro-3-furyl) disulfide, butanal, butanone, butyrolactone, carbon disulfide, decanal, dihydro-3-(2H)-thiophenone, dihydro-5-pentyl-2(3H)-furanone, dimethyl selenone, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, dodecanal, ethanol, ethyl acetate, formic acid, heptyl ester, furan, furfural, heptanal, hexanoic acid, isopropyl alcohol, isothiazole, isothiocyanato-methane, m-aminophenylacetylene, methacrolein, methanethiol, methional, methyl (methylthio)methyl disulfide, methyl isopropyl disulphide, methyl thiolacetate, methyl vinyl ketone, methyl-pyrazine, methyl-thiirane, nonanal, octanal, octane, oxalic acid, diallyl ester, oxalic acid, isobutyl pentyl ester, p-Cresol, p-dithiane-2,5-diol, pentanal, pentanoic acid, 2,2,4-trimethyl-3-hydroxy-, isobutyl ester, phenol, phenylacetaldehyde, propanal, propyl-cyclopropane, p-xylene, pyrazine, pyrrole, styrene, thiazole, thiocyanic acid, methyl ester, thiophene, toluene, trans-2-(2-pentenyl)furan, trichloromethane, and tridecane.

This post was written by Lisa Mueller.