The process of DaniscoвЂ™s patent relied on an enzyme being able to produce two functional ingredients from constituents present in the starting food material, before inactivation during the baking process. When broadly defined, a functional ingredient can be any constituent that performs a specific function in a foodstuff, other than supporting good nutrition. The term вЂfunctional ingredientвЂ™ has different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Core to the dispute is the manufacture of baked foodstuffs containing вЂfunctional ingredientsвЂ™. The Australian court cases reflect a dispute between Danish biotech-based companies Novozymes A/S (вЂNovozymesвЂ™) and Danisco A/S (вЂDaniscoвЂ™). In these cases, the players have used the patent system to protect and enforce their rights. Two recent Australian court cases highlight that innovating in the food sector may not always be straightforward. Patents can therefore be a useful tool in an intellectual property (IP) arsenal that, when implemented together with other IP rights protection measures, can aid in deriving value and maintaining an all-important competitive edge against competitors. Technological advances may allow competitors to develop similar processes independently or by analysing your commercial product. This being the case, maintaining a trade secret can be difficult and costly in todayвЂ™s competitive market place. However, whereas patents have a limited lifespan (usually 20 years), the lifespan of a trade secret can be indefinite. Obtaining a patent requires disclosure of the invention to the public, this disclosure generally being the antithesis of a trade secret. However, why seek patent protection, given the risk of exposing details of a process as a trade secret? Protecting food manufacturing processes using patents is a common industry practice. Originally published in Food Australia Magazine, August-September 2015 issue, pg 40-41.

Food processing methods trade secret