3D printing and patent law – a UK perspective: apt and ready?

2019 ◽  
pp. 115-136
Author(s):  
Marc D. Mimler
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Patent Law

scholarly journals Bioprinting and culture of tissues and organs in the BRICS countries (on the example of Brazil, India, China, and South Africa): approaches of legislation on intellectual property

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenia Michailovna Belikova
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Medical Technologies ◽  
Brics Countries ◽  
The Right

This article examines the legal regulation of bioprinting (3D printing) and culture of tissues and organs in the BRICS countries through the prism of protection of intellectual property. The work demonstrates the means of protection of results acquired at each stage of bioprinting by the norms of copyright and patent law, as well as touches on the questions of the need (possibility) for patenting of “bioprinters”, “bioinks”, “biopapers”, etc. The goal of this research is to determine the necessary and possible boundaries for patenting (copyright law protection) of the means, products, processes and their moral-ethical acceptance in the society. The novelty of this work consists in a comprehensive analysis of the approaches of BRICS countries towards development, legal formalization and protection of bioprinting and culture of tissues and organs as medical and non-medical technologies from the perspective of intellectual property law. The author attempts to answer the question of (non)patentability of the process (means) and result (product) of bioprinting of tissues and organs, the “bioprinters” themselves, as well as the “bioinks” and “biopapers” they use. With regards to (non)patentability of tissues and organs acquired through 3D printing, a conclusion is made that there is an unfavorable environment for their patenting, though their production, in the author’s opinion, should the right to patenting providing that they meet the criteria (other conditions) set by patenting law of a particular country.

scholarly journals The Maker Movement: Copyright Law, Remix Culture and 3D Printing

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Creative Industries ◽  
Maker Movement ◽  
Marcel Duchamp ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Maker Movement

Rimmer, Matthew (2017) The Maker Movement: Copyright law, remix culture, and 3D printing. University of Western Australia Law Review, 41(2), pp. 51-84.There has been much interest in how intellectual property law, policy, and practice will adapt to the emergence of 3D printing and the maker movement. Intellectual property lawyers will have to grapple with the impact of additive manufacturing upon a variety of forms of intellectual property – including copyright law, trade mark law, designs law, patent law, and trade secrets. The disruptive technology of 3D printing will both pose opportunities and challenges for legal practitioners and policy-makers.Rather than try to survey this expanding field, this article considers a number of early conflicts and skirmishes in respect of copyright law and 3D printing. There has been significant interest in the impact of 3D printing on copyright law and the creative industries. There have been classic issues raised about copyright subsistence, and the overlap between copyright law and designs. There has also been a moral panic about 3D printing facilitating copyright infringement – like peer to peer networks such as Napster in the past. There has been a use of open licensing models such as Creative Commons licensing to facilitate the sharing of 3D printing files. Such battles highlight a conflict between the open culture of the Maker Movement, and the closed culture of copyright industries. In many ways, such conflicts touch upon classic issues involved in ‘information environmentalism’. Part II looks at the controversy over Left Shark. In particular, it examines the copyright claims of Katy Perry in respect of the Left Shark figure. Part III considers questions about scanning. Augustana College tried to assert copyright against a maker, Jerry Fisher, who was scanning statues of Michelangelo (although copyright had long since expired in such work). Part IV focuses upon copyright law, 3D printing and readymades. The Estate of Marcel Duchamp lodged a copyright protest over a 3D printed set of chess, based on the work of Marcel Duchamp. Part V examines the intervention of a number of 3D printing companies in a Supreme Court of the United States dispute in Star Athletic v. Varsity Brands. Part VI considers copyright law and intermediary liability. Part VII examines the operation of technological protection measures in the context of copyright law and 3D Printing

scholarly journals 3D printing, the Maker Movement, IP Litigation and Legal Reform

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Open Source ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Maker Movement ◽  
Subtractive Manufacturing ◽  
Do It Yourself ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Maker Movement

3D printing is a field of technology, which relies upon additive manufacturing (as opposed to traditional subtractive manufacturing). 3D printing has also been associated with the Maker Movement – a social movement focused upon developing and sharing design files. The field of 3D printing is currently undergoing a transitional phase. The consumer 3D printing revolution – which had hoped that there would be a 3D printer every home - has been a disappointment. The pioneering home 3D printing company MakerBot was embroiled in a number of controversies over its changing approach to intellectual property, resulting in disenchantment with the open source maker community, and alienation from its user-base.. Bre Pettis – the former head of MakerBot – reflected in an interview: ‘The open-source community cast us out of heaven.’ In the end, MakerBot was taken over by the leading 3D printing Stratsys, and restructured and repurposed. A number of other key companies became insolvent. TechShop, a chain of membership-based, open-access, do-it-yourself workshop and fabrication studios, went into bankruptcy. Maker Media – which runs Make Magazine and a couple of United States maker festivals – went into administration. Dale Dougherty, founder of Make Magazine has sought to revive the venture with Make Community LLC. Nonetheless, while personal 3D printing has not developed as anticipated, there has been a rise in a number of other forms and modes of 3D printing. Industrial 3D printing – along with robotics and Big Data – has become integrated into advanced manufacturing. Information technology and design companies have sought to improve the applications of 3D printing. Metal 3D printing has attracted significant investment – particularly from transportation companies. There has also been much experimentation with health applications of 3D printing – such as dental 3D printing, medical 3D printing, and bioprinting. As the technology has matured and advanced, there have been a number of early pieces of litigation and some policy developments in respect of 3D printing regulation. Our recent book 3D Printing and Beyond explores some of the key developments in intellectual property (IP) and 3D printing. In particular, it investigates 3D printing issues in the domains of copyright law, designs law, trademark law, patent law, and trade secrets (as well as some larger questions about 3D printing regulation). It also looks at the use of open licensing models in respect of 3D printing.

scholarly journals The Right to Repair: Patent Law and 3D Printing in Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
3D Printing ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Digital Fabrication ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
High Court ◽  
Productivity Commission ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Court Of Australia

Considering recent litigation in the Australian courts, and an inquiry by the Productivity Commission, this paper calls for patent law reform in respect of the right to repair in Australia. It provides an evaluation of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2019] FCAFC 115 – as well as the High Court of Australia consideration of the matter in Calidad Pty Ltd v Seiko Epson Corporation [2020] HCA 41. It highlights the divergence between the layers of the Australian legal system on the topic of patent law – between the judicial approach of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, and the endorsement of the patent exhaustion doctrine by the majority of the High Court of Australia. In light of this litigation, this paper reviews the policy approach taken by the Productivity Commission in respect of patent law, the right to repair, consumer rights, and competition policy. After the considering the findings of the Productivity Commission, it is recommended that there is a need to provide for greater recognition of the right to repair under patent law. It also calls for the use of compulsory licensing, crown use, competition oversight, and consumer law protection to reinforce the right to repair under patent law. In the spirit of modernising Australia’s regime, this paper makes a number of recommendations for patent law reform – particularly in light of 3D printing, additive manufacturing, and digital fabrication. It calls upon the legal system to embody some of the ideals, which have been embedded in the Maker’s Bill of Rights, and the iFixit Repair Manifesto. The larger argument of the paper is that there needs to be a common approach to the right to repair across the various domains of intellectual property – rather than the current fragmentary treatment of the topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document