scholarly journals Biotechnological Inventions and Patent Law: National and International Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 132-135
Author(s):  
Jyoti Rattan
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Knowledge Society ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Biotechnological Inventions ◽  
Biotechnological Invention ◽  
Real Assets ◽  
Written Description

ABSTRACT In the knowledge society of 21st century, intellectual property rights (IPRs) are real assets and much more valuable and important than are materialistic assets like house, motor car, and so on. Patents are given for inventions which fulfill few important conditions, such as novelty, inventiveness, industrial application, and written description. Significantly, biotechnological invention involves monopoly over life or living beings or living processes, and morally and ethically these are considered to involve tinkering with life or nature. However, today, biotechnological inventions are patentable because of their benefits and utility to the industry. This article is a humble attempt to examine international and national law and judicial decisions relating to patents and biotechnological inventions from a theoretical perspective. How to cite this article Rattan J. Biotechnological Inventions and Patent Law: National and International Perspective. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2016;50(3):132-135.

scholarly journals Current topics in biotechnology patent law: The written description requirement

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin A Adler
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Biotechnological Inventions ◽  
Written Description

Universities and medical research institutions are as interested in securing patent protection for their biotechnological inventions as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Obtaining adequate patent protection by universities and research institutions has been hampered by the 'embryonic' nature of its inventions. This problem is particularly noticeable in the fields of biotechnology and molecular medicine. This paper focuses on recent court cases in US biotechnology patent law and analyses the effects of the legal decisions on the effort by universities and research institutions to secure meaningful legal protection for biotechnological inventions.

International Seminar – Contributions to the Development Agenda on Intellectual Property Rights

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Celia Castro ◽  
Maria Beatriz Amorim Bohrer
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
International Seminar ◽  
Development Agenda

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.

Development and Implications of Patent Law

2005 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
European Commission
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Human Stem Cells ◽  
Working Paper ◽  
Key Events ◽  
Biotechnological Inventions

AbstractIntroductionThis is the second report pursuant to Article 16c of the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions and bears the title “Developments and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering” (hereinafter the “second 16c Report”).Its purpose is to set out the key events which have occurred since publication of the first 16c Report, and to comment on two issues identified in the latter: the scope of patents on sequences or partial sequences of genes which have been isolated from the human body; and the patentability of human stem cells and cell lines obtained from them. The Commission’s analysis is based on the Commission staff working paper SEC(2005)943.

scholarly journals PATENTS IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS THAT ARE LAYING ON INVENTOR

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
putri indah sari
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Production Process ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Intellectual Work ◽  
The Government

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.

scholarly journals Pelindungan Hak Paten atas Pengetahuan Obat Tradisional Melalui Pasal 26 UU No. 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (Protection of Patent Rights on Traditional Medicine Knowledge Through Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 Concerning Patents)

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Traditional Medicine ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Traditional Medicines ◽  
Patent Rights

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.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

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.

Patents for plants and genes under the European Patent Convention

1992 ◽  
Vol 99 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Noel Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
Plant Biotechnology ◽  
European Patent ◽  
European Patent Convention ◽  
National Patent ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Biotechnological Invention ◽  
Written Description ◽  
Skilled Person

SynopsisThe cost of patenting an invention should be incurred only where the patent is likely to give the inventor an economic or a tactical advantage. Where it is practicable, secrecy may be preferable to patenting. If an advantage from patenting can be envisaged, then in Western Europe the inventor can apply either for a European patent under the European Patent Convention or for a national patent. The inventor in plant biotechnology faces a ban on patenting certain inventions, including plant varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants. But since this ban is interpreted strictly, there are opportunities for patenting what at first glance might seem not patentable. A patent application must give a written description of the invention that is complete enough for a skilled person to reproduce it. The inventor may be required to supplement the description in a patent specification for a biotechnological invention, by depositing a sample of relevant biological materials. A European patent is treated as a national patent in the country for which it was granted. Since a patent may be invalidated in enforcement proceedings, patenting may turn out to have been a costly mistake.

scholarly journals Dutch judicial entrepreneurship towards legitimizing intellectual property rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 684-694
Author(s):  
Krishnamani Jayaraman
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Property System ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Court Of Appeal

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.

Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe: Complying with the written description requirement under US patent law

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-99
Author(s):  
Sasha Blaug ◽  
Michael Shuster ◽  
Henry Su
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
Written Description
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document