A.

1) Could be patented if isolated from nature.

2) Could be patented only if substance itself was changed.

3) Only the process of isolating could be patented.

4) Patent protection could be denied altogether.

B. It depends on the local research and development capabilities in my country. If we possess a vast variety of traditional medicines, for example, providing process patent protection for the isolation of natural substances could be interesting for our inventors. However, under the doctrine of independence, our local inventors can in any case seek patent protection abroad even if we do not grant patents in this area.

We could strictly apply the patentability criteria "new", "inventive step", and "industrial application".

We could intensively search for prior art, taking into account as much information as possible.

When determining non-obviousness, we can take foreign expertise into account and thus elevate the level of prior art.

We can determine that an invention shall only be industrially applicable if it can somehow be used profitably.

A. Evergreening - By slightly modifying a patented product, the inventor might be granted another patent on the variant. This new patent would theoretically be different from the old patent. In practice, however, the patentee might allege infringement cases against the third party and judges might face difficulties in distinguishing the new from the old (expired) patent.

B.

1) Legislators could exclude product derivatives without significant efficacy improvements from patentable subject matter (Indian approach).

2) Should the legislator not have excluded product derivatives without significant efficacy improvements from patentability, patent examiners could strictly apply the novelty and inventive step requirements (US approach). Then, the applicants could be requested to prove efficacy improvements of their inventions.

C.

Option 1: By drawing on a broad interpretation of Article 27.3 (a), TRIPS Agreement and by strictly applying the patentability criteria, we could generally exclude new uses from patent protection. It is advisable to clarify this in the domestic patent laws or in patent examination guidelines.

Option 2: Should we wish to grant process patents on new uses, we should limit such patents to first medical uses rather than second medical uses.

Option 3: Alternatively, we could protect new uses through other means of protection, such as utility models or through sui generis regimes, building upon compensatory liability approaches. 

D. New uses of known substances can be denied patent protection both by excluding them from patentable subject matter and by strictly applying the patentability criteria.

1) Patentable subject matter: By broadly interpreting the methods of treatment exception in Article 27.3 (a), TRIPS Agreement, process patents on new uses can be denied.

2) Patentability criteria: Within the context of patentability criteria, new uses can be excluded also from product patent protection by arguing that the product as such has been available to the public before. Process patent protection can be denied if the new use is predictable, i.e. if the new use would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.

E. We could establish in our laws alternative means of protection for incremental innovations, such as utility models or compensatory liability. Under the latter approach, any third party would be allowed to use the protected invention under the condition that the right holder is compensated.