Patents, Governance and Control: Ethics and the Patentability of Novel Beings and Advanced Biotechnologies in Europe

This article focuses primarily on to what extent novel beings, and particularly, beings which display something akin to human consciousness or agency would be (or should be) patentable under current European patent law. Patents grant the patent holder a right to exclude others from using the patented invention for the period of patent grant (usually 20 years). This allows the patent holder to control how that invention can or cannot be used by others downstream, granting patent holders a governance like function over the patented technology for the duration of the patent. Accordingly, the potential for patentability of novel beings gives rise to a myriad of ethical issues including: to what extent is it appropriate for patent holders to retain and exercise patents over “novel beings”; how issues of “agency” displayed by any “novel beings” would fit within the current patent framework, if at all; and to what extent existing exclusions from patentability might exclude patents on “novel beings” or whether changes within patent law may be needed if patents in relation to “novel beings” are deemed ethically problematic. This article focuses on such issues, and in doing so, also sheds light on the role of ethical issues within the patenting of advanced biotechnologies more generally.

DABUS gains territory in South Africa and Australia: Revisiting the AI-inventorship question

This paper draws from and builds upon DO Oriakhogba ‘What If DABUS Came to Africa? Visiting AI Inventorship and Ownership of Patent from the Nigerian Perspective’ (2021) 42(2) Business Law Review 89. It reviews the recent granting of a patent by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) to Dr Stephen Thaler in respect of the DABUS-generated invention in South Africa and the judgment of the Australian Federal Court (FCA) upholding AI-inventorship. The review, which is based on desk research, is conducted against a backdrop of statutory provisions and case law from both countries, the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and relevant literature dealing with the inventorship question. The paper determines whether, without reform of the extant patent law and policy, recognition of artificial intelligence (AI) as an inventor does not undermine the foundational concept of human inventorship, and the central focus on human creation and agency for intellectual property protection in South Africa and Australia. In connection with this, the paper asks and examines the question of whether the CIPC patent grant and the FCA judgment can stand judicial scrutiny under the extant patent regimes in South Africa and Australia.

How tall is your claim? Strategically acing patent scope

Purpose The article examines strategically directing the breadth of scope of a patent and hazards of litigation vis-à-vis the length of claims for innovating firms. Design/methodology/approach This paper enumerates latest literature on assessing patent scope and hence protection afforded to firm innovations. Based on prior research findings, this paper proposes to maintain a balanced and nuanced approach to claim drafting to assure grant of patent while minimizing litigation threats. Findings To strategically manage patent grant and minimize litigation threat, firms would better take a leaf out of academic discourse and streamline claim drafting – not too wide to earn an examiner’s ire and not too narrow to let an infringer bypass by. Unlike smaller firms or universities, big firms are less likely to renew a patent with less scope. Research limitations/implications The study sample in contemporary literature is exclusive to patents from US Patent and Trademark Office. Whether the same result will be replicated for diverse countries is uncertain. Practical implications The understanding that patent scope not only influences grant chances but also is an indicator of future litigation threat can help patent practitioners and innovating firms in strategically directing the patent. Originality/value The paper draws from the findings of three well-articulated recent research papers. The paper’s originality and value is in providing practical insights on how to perfect patent scope in a real world based on academic discourse.

8. Patent Protection and Exploitation

Once a European patent has been granted the nature and scope of the protection it confers must be determined. In considering such protection this chapter focuses on four issues of central importance to that end. The first is the effects of a patent, namely, the territories in and term for which it is valid. The second is the object of protection, namely, the subject matter that the public is excluded from using during the term of its protection. The third is the nature of protection, namely, the uses of the subject matter from which the public is excluded. And the fourth is the limitations to protection, namely, the uses of an invention that the law permits notwithstanding its protection by patent grant.