scholarly journals Patents and non-invasive prenatal testing: Is there cause for concern?

Author(s):  
Naomi Hawkins

Abstract Intellectual property rights are key to the translation of discoveries into clinical use in personalised medicine. This article explores the interaction of intellectual property rights, specifically patents, with the field of genomic personalised medicine, through empirical work investigating the role that patents play in the development and delivery of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Single gene testing (SGT) and NIPT represent examples of two different types of innovation likely to be important in personalised medicine, and which operate differently in terms of how the law is applied in practice. In SGT, on the one hand, previous studies demonstrate that patents have little impact on practice for those developing genetic tests in the public sector in the UK because they are largely ignored. In contrast, however, this qualitative interview study finds that law and law-in-practice in NIPT are much more convergent than found in SGT. Those involved in the development and delivery of NIPT are more aware of patents, and balance the costs and benefits of greater engagement or compliance with patent law, in relation to factors such as freedom to operate, litigation, and licensing, in favour of compliance. Compliance can take different forms; licensing is compliance, as is forbearance from using a patented invention in the absence of a patent licence. This article explores the factors relevant to patent law compliance in NIPT, and further considers the implications for the field of personalised medicine. It argues that, as the prevalent means to promote openness, access, and affordability in biomedicine are founded on the existing legal structures of intellectual property rights, such solutions will only be effective and adopted when these existing legal structures of intellectual property law are recognised and respected in the relevant field. It is therefore essential that such solutions only be deployed with a nuanced understanding of the operation of the law-in-practice.

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer

TRIPS as it stands is against the interests of developing countries, and needsreform. In developing their own patent law, developing countries need to recognizethat there is now near consensus among informed observers that patentlaw and practice have, in some cases, overshot, and need to be reformed. Thatis the burden of the recent NAS/NRC report on “A Patent System for the 21stCentury.


Author(s):  
Professor Adebambo Adewopo ◽  
Dr Tobias Schonwetter ◽  
Helen Chuma-Okoro

This chapter examines the proper role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in achieving access to modern energy services in Africa as part of a broader objective of a pro-development intellectual property agenda for African countries. It discusses the role of intellectual property rights, particularly patents, in consonance with pertinent development questions in Africa connected with the implementation of intellectual property standards, which do not wholly assume that innovation in Africa is dependent on strong intellectual property systems. The chapter examines how existing intellectual property legal landscapes in Africa enhance or impede access to modern energy, and how the law can be directed towards improved energy access in African countries. While suggesting that IPRs could serve an important role in achieving modern energy access, the chapter calls for circumspection in applying IP laws in order not to inhibit access to useful technologies for achieving access to modern energy services.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
putri indah sari

The problems in this research are: (1) Is the patent in production can be provided to the workers / employees as a inventor? (2) How will the moral rights attached to the inventor to patent the intellectual work produced during the production process? This research uses normative juridical approach. Source of data derived from secondary data that primary legal materials, secondary, and tertiary. The results showed that patents in the production process is not given to the discoverer of workers / employees. The government needs to dissemination of the patents and other intellectual property rights so that a producer of intellectual work so that they know that the law protects what they produce. Governments also need to revise the provisions of Article 12 paragraph (1) Patent Law, where the rights of patent holders fixed on the inventor.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Ciprian Raul Romiţan

The moral rights represent the legal expression of the relationship between the workand its creator; they precede, survive and exert a permanent influence on the economic rights.Moral rights are independent of economic rights, the author of a work preserving these rightseven after the transfer of its property rights.The right to claim recognition as the author of the work, called in the doctrine as the"right of paternity of the work" is enshrined in art. 10 lit. b) of the law and it is based on theneed to respect the natural connection between the author and his work. The right toauthorship is the most important prerogative that constitutes intellectual property rights ingeneral and consists of recognizing the true author of a scientific, literary or artistic work.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum

Patent as a branch of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) serves to protect inventions on the field of technology, one of them being medicine. The rise on the number of cases on the theft of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on the field of medicine for commercialization purposes shows that the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge is still not optimal. This article is the result of a normative juridical research which is supported by an empirical data, examines the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge and the implementation of Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law year 2016). In the research results, it was mentioned that even though the TRIPs Agreement did not accommodate the traditional knowledge, the presence of Patent Law year 2016 complemented the Indonesian government's efforts to save the knowledge of traditional medicines from biopiracy and misappropriation. It is necessary to regulate the disclosure obligation in TRIPs agreement and further mechanism regarding benefit sharing and granting access to traditional medicines knowledge. AbstrakPaten merupakan salah satu cabang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang berfungsi untuk melindungi invensi di bidang teknologi, salah satunya obat-obatan. Maraknya kasus pencurian sumber daya genetik dan pengetahuan tradisional di bidang obat-obatan untuk tujuan komersialisasi menunjukkan bahwa pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional masih belum maksimal. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif yang didukung dengan data empiris, membahas mengenai pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional dan implementasi Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (UU Paten 2016). Di dalam hasil penelitian, disebutkan meskipun Perjanjian Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) belum mengakomodasi pengetahuan tradisional namun hadirnya UU Paten 2016 melengkapi usaha pemerintah Indonesia dalam menyelamatkan pengetahuan obat tradisional dari biopiracy dan misappropriation. Perlu pengaturan kewajiban disclosure di dalam Perjanjian TRIPs dan mekanisme lebih lanjut mengenai benefit sharing dan pemberian akses atas pengetahuan obat tradisional.


LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-694
Author(s):  
Krishnamani Jayaraman

In its recent judgment in the Sisvel v. Xiaomi case, the Court of Appeal of the Hague has demonstrated how European national legal systems and judiciary therein strive to uphold legitimacy of the intellectual property system. Involving dimensions of both substantive patent law and competition law, the case emphasized proportionality etched in European Union law to determine the legitimate cohesive balance for stakeholder economic interests in the protection, enforcement and use of intellectual property rights. This case note documents the salient features of the judgment and further comments on striking legal concepts that marked the case.


Author(s):  
Mark Lemley

A number of doctrines in modern copyright and patent law attempt to strikesome balance between the rights of original developers and the rights ofsubsequent improvers. Both patents and copyrights are limited in durationand in scope. Each of these limitations provides some freedom of action tosubsequent improvers. Improvers are free to use material that is in thepublic domain because the copyright or patent has expired. They are free toskirt the edges of existing intellectual property rights, for example bytaking the ideas but not the expression from a copyrighted work or"designing around" the claims of a patent. However, improvers cannot alwaysavoid the intellectual property rights of the basic work on which they wishto improve. Some improvements fall within the scope of the preexistingintellectual property right, either because of an expansive definition ofthat right or because economic or technical necessity requires that theimprover hew closely to the work of the original creator in some basicrespect. Here, the improver is at the mercy of the original intellectualproperty owner, unless there is some separate right that expressly allowscopying for the sake of improvement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Delila Pritaria Cantika

Trademark as a part of intellectual property rights in essence is a sign to identify and distinguishing a product that made by a company with other products in the market. Trademark must be registered to gain a legal recourse in the form of Rights Over Trademark. However a registered trademark can still be nullified, based on a certain adequate evidence the registered trademark cannot fulfilled the absolute grounds or relative grounds. In furtherance, nowadays trademark legally feasible to be registered as a collateral. And as for the most accurate form of the collateral itself according to the law shall be registered fiduciary guaranty.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document