Kotala Himbutu-Truth or fallacy?

An explanation

Jagath Gunawardana

This refers to the article titled Fujifilm Corporation Patents Kotala Himbutu-Truth or fallacy? by Ravi Corea that appeared in the Daily News, May 24. Since the first news item based on this topic has relied on information provided by me, it is my moral obligation to provide an explanation for the sake of the writer and the newspaper and more importantly on the Science and Technology Minister Professor Tissa Vitharana, who acted promptly lest readers may form erroneous conclusions if we were to remain silent. At the same time any response is not perceived as an attack and is most welcomed by us as it provides yet another opportunity to further expand on an issue that will raise the awareness of the public.

1. The patent in question is WO2010/035675 of April 1, 2010, registered at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), titled Immunopotentiator or Anti allergic agent and there are no other patents issued to the same company on the same day related to Kotala Himbutu.

2. The three inventors named in this patent are Fumitaka Udea, Chihaya Kakinuma and Yuriko Serizawa and none of the names mentioned by Corea are listed as inventors in this patent. It is also pertinent to mention that all the other patents relating to Kotala Himbutu that were awarded to this company mentioned in the news item has none of the names mentioned by Corea as inventors. It is up to him to show how and where he found out the names he mentioned as inventors and missed the names of inventors in the patent.

3. The statement that the patent originated in Alexandria , Virginia , U.S.A. is not clear but a patent is prepared and filed from a certain country and he may have been referring to this. Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), an applicant from any member country can file an application to WIPO through the intellectual property office of their own country. The PCT Application number cites the country of filing by providing the country code as part of it. The PCT Application of the said patent is PCT/JP2009/066203 which has the country code (JP) of Japan showing that it has been filed from Japan. It is also seen that the agent for the patent is Koh-Ei Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan. If Corea is to be correct in this respect, he would have been privy to some very confidential information not mentioned in any document related to the patent, which are accessible to the public.

4. The different aspects of an invention that ought to be protected are set out in the claims of the patent. The claims can cover either an aspect of a product (known as product claims) or aspects of the process (known as process claims). The claims of this patent make it clear that it only pertains to food and pharmaceutical preparations having immunnopotentiator and antiallergic properties. It is also clear that all the claims in the patent cover only different aspects and types of the products and do not cover any processes. Hence the statement of Corea that the patent is for a method for preparing an emulsion or dispersion or foodstuff is not true to this patent. Furthermore, this patent does not cover any preparations that are applied on the skin as claimed by Corea.

5. The claims and the description make it clear that this patent not only covers the properties of the Kotala Himbutu but of all species belonging to the genus Salacia that may contain the same properties as well. It does not cover any other preparation from any other plant or algae or yeasts as claimed by Corea and what he states has no relevance at all with the patent in question. Hence we will be much obliged if he could show which claim covers this in the patent in question or at least state the relevant part of the patent where this information is found.

6. The statement of him that the eight patents supposedly filed for Salacia are eight methods of preparing emulsions using their methods and nowhere do they claim in those preparation processors that Salacia is an ingredient makes us wonder whether he is talking of eight other patents that are not pertinent to the issue at hand. It has to be emphasized that all eight patents that we referred to are for products derived from Kotala Himbutu and are not process patents nor are they for emulsions as stated by him. A patent is in the public domain once issued and it has to be categorically stated that we are in a position to disclose all relevant information including the full documents if there is a need as all information has been obtained by referring to the full patent documents. At the same time, we cordially invite Corea to state the numbers of these patents from which he seems to be quoting which are for some unknown shortcoming are unknown to us so that we may have the good fortune of expanding our knowledge.