DOCSLIB.ORG

Electronic Copy Available At

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Electronic Copy Available At Policy Levers Tailoring Patent Law to Biotechnology. Comparing US and European Approaches Geertrui Van Overwalle Professor of IP Law at the University of Leuven (Belgium) Professor of Patent Law and New Technologies at the University of Tilburg (the Netherlands) Working paper – April 2010 To be published in University of California Irvine Law Review (forthcoming) Table of content 1. Introduction 1.1. “The patent crisis” 1.2. Objective and scope of the present study 1.2.1. European patent law 1.2.2. Policy levers 1.2.3. Biotechnology 2. Biotech-specific policy levers in Europe 2.1. Patent acquisition 2.1.1. Patentable subject matter – inventions and discoveries 2.1.2. Patentable subject matter – morality 2.1.3. Patentable subject matter – medical methods 2.1.4. Novelty – first and second medical use 2.1.5. Novelty – selection invention 2.1.6. Novelty – testing exemption 2.1.7. Inventive step – expectation of success 2.1.8. Inventive step – secondary indicia – commercial success 2.1.9. Industrial applicability 2.1.10. Skilled person 2.1.11. Enabling disclosure 2.2. Patent scope 2.2.1. Scope of product claims – absolute vs. limited scope 2.2.2. Clarity of claims 2.2.3. Breadth of claims 2.3. Patent rights and limitations 2.3.1. Research exemption 2.3.2. Compulsory licensing 2.3.3. Patent term 3. Conclusions 3.1. European policy levers in biotechnology 3.1.1. Policy levers 3.1.2. Macro versus micro policy levers 3.1.3. Statutory versus jurisprudential policy levers 3.1.4. Pre-grant versus post-grant policy levers 3.1.5. European versus national policy levers 3.1.6. Private interest versus public interest levers 3.2. Comparing European and US policy levers 4. Critical assessment. “The patent crisis” revisited 4.1. Role and motivation for tailoring 4.2. Role of the courts 5. Final remarks 5.1. Future research 5.2. Concluding thoughts 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1720875 Abstract In their animated book The Patent Crisis and How the Courts can Solve It, Dan Burk and Mark Lemley give an account of their quest into the judicial treatment of patents in different industry sectors. They present an in-depth commentary on industry specific differences in the patent system from both a legal and economic perspective. The present article attempts to enrich the conversation by sketching the situation in Europe and providing an interesting measure for comparison. In doing so, the paper mainly focuses on the legal situation, and does not enter into the economics discussion. The paper concludes that current European patent law holds substantial potential for technology-specific application. Even though the European Convention (EPC) may have been conceived at its inception as a nominally neutral patent statute, our study clearly reveals that substantial discretion to differ the patent system by industry, and in particular to tailor it to the specificities of the biotechnology sector, is built into the system over the years. Although the EPC was introduced as a unitary regulatory tool, intended to operate the same way across technologies, EPO case law has shown increased interest and ability in tailoring patent law to the needs of distinct technology sectors, and in particular the biotechnology sector. Given the civil law tradition in which European patent law operates, a prevalence of well articulated macro rules openly set forth by the legislature was anticipated. However, a clear predominance of jurisprudential micro policy levers has emerged. Not all European policy levers uncovered in the present study, come to the advantage of the biotechnology industry. Closer analysis of the various policy levers, reveals that rather than systematically expanding the patent system to accommodate biotechnology inventions and stimulating innovation in the biotechnology sector, some policy levers narrow down the patent potential for biotechnological inventions, in an attempt to give echo to concerns of public health and ethical conscience. 2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1720875 1. Introduction 1.1. “The patent crisis” In their book The Patent Crisis and How the Courts can Solve It,1 Burk and Lemley start from the observation that today’s technology world is characterized by differing innovation and patent patterns per sector. Innovation is not all of a piece and innovation patterns and R&D expenditures may differ from industry to industry in a variety of ways. 2Those differences extend to the way in which industry players experience the patent system and results in patent patterns which may vary from industry to industry as well. Firms’ propensity to obtain patents differs across sectors 3 and some industries rely more heavily on patents than others. Patent prosecution processes diverge according to industry and getting a patent is quicker, cheaper and easier in some industries than in others.4 Distribution of value itself varies systematically by industry.5 Even the effective scope of granted patents is different by industry, and there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between a single patent and a single product.6 And, the construction of a patent portfolio is also industry specific.7 Focusing on the pharmaceutical industry, Burk and Lemley set forth that the pharmaceutical industry is characterized by non-cumulative innovation, where the need for further research on a particular drug after FDA approval is not high.8 As to patent protection, there seems to be a strong consensus that patent strategies are well established in the pharma industry, that this sector heavily relies on patent protection and that it is one of the key users of the patent system.9 In the biotechnology sector, patent protection is quite often also seen as critical to innovation 10, even though concerns have arisen about the many upstream patents that might 1 Burk, D.L. & Lemley, M.A., The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It, Chicago-London, The University of Chicago Press, 2009 (further abbreviated as Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009). 2 See Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 5, 38, 39-41. A few other significant quotes in the same sense: “The evidence is overwhelming that, at virtually every stage of both the innovation and patent processes, different industries have different needs and experience the patent system differently” (Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 65); “It makes little sense to speak generally about innovation or about patents” (Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 65); “We do not have a unitary patent system today, if by unitary you mean one system that works the same way everywhere. We have one set of legal rules, but the industries affected by the rules operate in very different patent systems” (Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 65) 3 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, with reference to Brower, E., & Kleinknecht, A., Innovatie Output and a Firm’s Propensity to Patent: An Exploration of CIS Micro Data, 28 Res.Pol 615, 1999; Scherer, F.M., Herzstein, S.E. & Dreyfoos, A.W. et al., Patents and the Corporation, 1959, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, 195p. 4 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, with reference to Allison, J.R. & Lemley, M.A., Who’s Patenting What?An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution, 53 Vanderbilt Law Review, (2099), 2124-32 (2000). 5 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009 with reference to Schankerman, M., How valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field, 29 RAND J. Econ. 77, 79 (1998). 6 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 53. 7 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, with reference to Parchomovsky, G. & Wagner, R.P., Patent Portfolios, 154 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1 (2005). 8 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 33. 9 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, with reference to Lanjouw, J.O. & Cockburn, I., Do Patents Matter? Empirical Evidence after GATT, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No 7495, 2000. However, compared to other industries, pharma and biotech do not patent intensely, at least not in Europe. The EPO statistics of 2008 clearly show that the top of the leading 25 applicants were again Philips, Siemens (now up to second place) and Samsung. Not a single pharma or biotech company, apart from Bayer, was listed in the top 25 (See “Leading applicants and patentees in 2008”, in EPO Annual Report 2008, p. 21). 10 Burk & Lemley, The Patent Crisis, 2009, 4 3 hamper the development of final drugs and therapies.11 As to patent prosecution, chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnological patents seem to spend much longer in prosecution, cite more prior art, and are abandoned and refiled more frequently.12 As to value distribution, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries hold patents with more consistent value.13 As to scope, the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors are characterized by a patent-to-product correspondence, where a single patent normally covers a single product, new chemical or a new use for that chemical.14 And in industries such as pharmaceuticals, characterized by patent-to-product correspondence, patent portfolios are rare: pharmaceutical companies may seek a few patents covering the same pharmaceutical product, thus patenting metabolites, extended release formulations, enantiomers, or processes of use.15 These patents are usually used to try to extend patent life: rather than creating a “thicket” of patents surrounding a complex of products 16, they create a “cluster” of patents surrounding one product or technology to prolong the protection (and related income) of a blockbuster.17 Based
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Practice for Overseas Attorneys
    European Practice for Overseas Attorneys European patent law differs in some significant aspects from the law in other countries, in particular the United States. This note sets out some important features of European patent law to remember when preparing patent applications for Europe. For more detailed drafting tips, see our briefing note"Drafting Patents for Europe". Novelty Claiming priority According to European patent law, an invention is considered The European rules on claiming priority are in accordance new if it has not been made available to the public anywhere with the Paris Convention, so that priority can be claimed in the world before the priority date of the patent application. within one year of the first regular national filing in a An invention is "made available to the public" if knowledge Convention country. If a second priority application is filed of the claimed features of the invention was available to any and the European application is filed within one year of the person who was not under an obligation to keep the invention second but not the first application, priority is lost for matter confidential. which was in the first priority application, and it has the date of the European filing only. This most commonly occurs A novelty-destroying disclosure can be in any form, for when the second application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) example an oral description or a public display of the relevant application and can be very serious if there is a European features of the invention, as well as printed publications. (or PCT) application corresponding to the US parent, as this This means that public prior use of the invention anywhere in will be at least novelty-only prior art.
    [Show full text]
  • A Mission Impossible? an Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 3 International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Mauricio Troncoso, International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches, 17 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 231 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol17/iss2/3 This International Intellectual Property Scholars Series is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRONCOSO FORMATTED FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/24/2013 1:09 PM INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SCHOLARS SERIES* EUROPEAN UNION PATENTS: A MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 1 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT APPROACHES MAURICIO TRONCOSO** I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 233 II. THE FIRST APPROACHES ........................................................................... 233 A. Original Design ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Unified Patent Court: the Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners?
    ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law Landslide Magazine March/April 2016 Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners? By Kevin R. Greenleaf, Michael W. O’Neill, and Aloys Hüettermann Kevin R. Greenleaf is a counsel at Dentons US LLP where he specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Michael W. O’Neill is of counsel at Dentons US LLP in Washington, DC, and a former Administrative Patent Judge from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is a German and European patent and trademark attorney and a partner at Michalski Hüttermann & Partner. He specializes in chemistry, bioorganic chemistry, and pharma, and can be reached at [email protected]. Much like Americans, Europeans are revising their patent laws to include a new litigation-style proceed- ing to determine patent validity and infringement. These proceedings will take place in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which will be installed together with the unitary patent (UP), the latter allowing a single patent for nearly all of Europe. Such a revision will be the greatest change in European patent law since the establishment of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the 1970s. American patent practition- ers need to understand how the new UPC will operate. Europeans can learn from the American experi- ence of establishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The upcoming UPC is based on an international treaty; however, only European Union (EU) member states can join.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office
    GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION IN THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Published by the European Patent Office Published by the European Patent Office Directorate Patent Law 5.2.1 D-80298 Munich Tel.: (+49-89) 2399-4512 Fax: (+49-89) 2399-4465 Printed by: European Patent Office, Munich Printed in Germany © European Patent Office ISBN 3-89605-074-5 a LIST OF CONTENTS page General Part Contents a 1. Preliminary remarks 1 2. Explanatory notes 1 2.1 Overview 1 2.2 Abbreviations 2 3. General remarks 3 4. Work at the EPO 3 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 4 6. Contracting States to the EPC 5 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 5 Part A – Guidelines for Formalities Examination Contents a Chapter I Introduction I-1 Chapter II Filing of applications and examination on filing II-1 Chapter III Examination of formal requirements III-1 – Annex List of Contracting States to the Paris Convention (see III, 6.2) III-20 Chapter IV Special provisions IV-1 Chapter V Communicating the formalities report; amendment of application; correction of errors V-1 Chapter VI Publication of application; request for examination and transmission of the dossier to Examining Division VI-1 Chapter VII Applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) before the EPO acting as a designated or elected Office VII-1 Chapter VIII Languages VIII-1 Chapter IX Common provisions IX-1 Chapter X Drawings X-1 Chapter XI Fees XI-1 Chapter XII Inspection of files; communication of information contained in files; consultation of the Register of European
    [Show full text]
  • An Open-And-Shut Case the Diplomatic Conference To
    International Journal of Communications Law and Policy Issue 6, Winter 2000/2001 AN OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE TO REVISE THE ARTICLES OF THE EURO- PEAN PATENT OFFICE VOTES TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO REGARDING SOFTWARE PATENTS IN EUROPE PENDING ISSUANCE OF A NEW SOFTWARE PATENT DIRECTIVE BY THE EUROPEAN UNION by Erwin J. Basinski, Esq. ** A. Introduction The majority of EPC States decided that the issue of changes to delete the prohibition against computer programs as such should be deferred pending the review being carried out by the European Commission in preparation for the proposed EU Directive on Software Patents. There would then be the possibility of including a subsequent amendment to Article 52 after the EU Software Patent Directive is issued. As to the pending Software Patent Directive, on 19 October 2000, the European Com- mission launched consultations (i.e. requests for comments) via the Internet on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, requesting that interested parties submit comments to the EC prior to December 15, 2000. It was reported that over 60,000 comments were received from independent software developers and small to medium business enterprises (SME) in Europe as a result of a concerted lobbying campaign against software patents by the Open Source Soft- ware community in Europe. Some comments, both pro and con are now available for viewing on the EU web site. It is understood that the EU is soliciting additional economic studies and will begin the draft of the Software Patent Directive shortly. B. Background Software patents have been granted in Europe for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright to Protect Intellectual Property Rights in Cdna, a Better Legal Regime Than Patent Law?
    Copyright to protect intellectual property rights in cDNA, a better legal regime than patent law? Michael Christian van Staveren BA ANR 444484 Thesis supervisor and first reader: Ivan Skorvanek PhD Second reader: Maša Galič PhD Abstract: cDNA (or complementary/engineered DNA) applications are a growing trend in the Biotechnology sphere. cDNA strands are DNA strands that are artificially created. These engineered DNA strands can be used to change the properties of vegetables, livestock, or to find and scope out cancerous mutations in human beings. The possibilities seem endless. Because this industry is a rapidly growing one, the current legal regime might not be suited for cDNA anymore. But is this really the case? The current legal regime is patent law. In literature, it has been proposed to have copyright law be applicable to cDNA. The reasoning behind this is that copyright would be perfect, since it shares many similarities with computer code which can already fall under the copyright regime. It is also much cheaper, and there are no formal requirements. In this thesis, I will evaluate the arguments in favor of making such a change. I will also discuss the counterarguments. My conclusion will be that a hybrid system or a change from one system to another might not be the best solution. I propose a semi-hybrid system. The idea is that copyright law would protect cDNA applications from the moment they are created, up until they receive patent protection. This way cDNA is protected by copyright law but will in the end transition to patent law, which is arguably more robust.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Self-Defeating Policy: Patent Harmonization and the Ban on Human Cloning Robin Beck Skarstad*
    COMMENTS THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SELF-DEFEATING POLICY: PATENT HARMONIZATION AND THE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING ROBIN BECK SKARSTAD* 1. INTRODUCTION The European Parliament's1 approval of a directive,2 ten years in the making, represents a huge step towards improving the cli- * I appreciate the time and effort comment editor Eric Green devoted to this piece. I would also like to thank my husband Erik, my sister Jodi, and my parents Robert and Elaine for listening, supporting, and believing long before this piece was ever written. ' The European Parliament, located in Strasbourg, is a governmental body of the European Community ("EC") created by the founding Treaty on Euro- pean Union. See TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Feb. 7, 1992, OJ. (C 224) 1 (1992), [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 573 (1992) [hereinafter Maas- tricht Treaty]. It is composed of representatives of the member nations ("MEP"s) who are elected to five-year terms. Although it has recently taken on a greater legislative role, the European Parliament is primarily a consulta- tive and supervisory body. It has the power to refuse assent to agreements and protocols, which is, in effect, a veto power. The European Commission is ac- countable to the Parliament who can censure and require Commissioners' res- ignations. The Parliament also monitors the activities of other European Un- ion ("EU") institutions through committees of inquiry and is empowered to conduct inquiries into complaints or petitions and bring proceedings before the Court of Justice. The Treaty Establishing the European Community defined the Parliament as a consultative body whose views should be taken into con- sideration regarding issues of common foreign and security policy in addition to activities generally concerning Justice and Home Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road Towards a European Unitary Patent
    EUC Working Paper No. 21 Working Paper No. 21, March 2014 Unified European Front: The Road towards a European Unitary Patent Gaurav Jit Singh Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Photo: BNEGroup.org ABSTRACT For over forty years, European countries have held numerous conferences and signed multiple international agreements aimed at either creating a unitary patent which will be valid in all European countries upon issuance or establishing a specialized European court with jurisdiction over patents. This paper first outlines the need for a unitary patent in the European Union and then chronicles the measures taken to support and milestones toward the creation of a European-wide unitary patent system. The paper then discusses the few problems and pitfalls that have prevented European countries from coming to an agreement on such a patent system. Finally, the paper considers the closely related agreements of ‘Unitary Patent Package’, the challenges facing these agreements and examines if it would finally result in an EU Unitary patent system that benefits one and all. The views expressed in this working paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the EU Centre in Singapore. The EU Centre in Singapore is a partnership of 13 EUC Working Paper No. 21 UNIFIED EUROPEAN FRONT: THE ROAD TOWARDS A EUROPEAN UNITARY PATENT GAURAV JIT SINGH1 INTRODUCTION Obtaining, enforcing and maintaining patents in the EU are far from efficient or cost effective. An inventor that seeks patent protection in the European Union (EU) territory now has to either file for a national patent in each one of 28 national patent offices, or file for a European patent, granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), within the framework of the European Patent Convention (EPC)2.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Tier Patent Protection Mark D
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1999 Second Tier Patent Protection Mark D. Janis Indiana University Maurer School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Janis, Mark D., "Second Tier Patent Protection" (1999). Articles by Maurer Faculty. Paper 543. http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/543 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 40, NUMBER 1, WINTER 1999 Second Tier Patent Protection Mark D. Janis* The problem of access to the patent system, particularly for small en- terprises, 1 currently dominates the patent policy debate internation- ally. Although the access problem can be conceptualized in a variety of ways, 2 it is often defined narrowly in terms of the prohibitive costs of 3 acquiring and enforcing patent rights. A number of the responsive strategies currently being implemented entail direct reform of the regular patent system through fee reduc- tions4 or substantive reforms. However, an important trend emerging in many regions of the world focuses on an additional strategy in which access to the patent system is to be enhanced by the expansion (or, in some cases, the creation) of an entirely separate regime of rights, known variously as the "utility model," the "petty patent," or, generi- * Associate Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of.Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Review on Industrial Design Protection in Europe
    Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Under the contract with the Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (MARKT2014/083/D) Legal review on industrial design protection in Europe Final Report - 15 April 2016 EN This study was carried out for the European Commission by For further information on this report, please contact: Mr. Jos Dumortier time.lex - information & technology law 35 rue du Congrès B-1000 Brussels - Belgium M: +32 477 33 82 96 [email protected] www.timelex.eu Core Team: Prof Jos Dumortier time.lex Davide Parrilli time.lex Prof Uma Suthersanen Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London Honorary Prof David Musker Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, Queen Mary, London; Consultant, Jenkins Patricia Ypma Spark Legal Network Peter McNally Spark Legal Network Jasmine Simpson Spark Legal Network Dr Lena Boucon Spark Legal Network Jo Steyaert Indiville Wouter Samyn Indiville Country Experts: Prof Clemens Appl Austria Vienna University of Economics and Business Susie P. Arnesen Denmark Løje, Arnesen & Meedom Prof Mario Franzosi Italy Avvocati Associati Franzosi Dal Negro Setti Prof Ignacio Garrote Spain Autonomous University of Madrid Prof Christophe Geiger, France CEIPI, University of Strasbourg Natalia Kapyrina Prof Pavel Koukal Czech Republic Masaryk University Dr Ewa Laskowska Poland Jagiellonian University Prof Marianne Levin Sweden Stockholm University Dr Vytautas Mizaras Lithuania Valiunas Ellex Mark Pohar Slovenia - Dr Ana Ramalho Portugal Maastricht University Allard Ringnalda Netherlands Klos cs Dr Dharamveer Singh Chauhan Luxembourg VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA Prof Guido Westkamp, Germany Queen Mary Intellectual Property Dr Marc Mimler Research Institute, Queen Mary, London DISCLAIMER The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Evergreening and Patent Cliff Hangers CRISPR/Cas9 System and Gene
    Evergreening and patent cliff CRISPR/Cas9 system and gene Being equitable about hangers editing tools equivalents Ove Granstrand Thomas Hedner and Jean Lyckel John Hornby Page 4 Page 12 Page 24 Second medical use claims Do rules experience culture The patentability of Dosage and scope of protection shock? Regimes Clara Berrisch Lisa West Åkerblom Ester-Maria Elze Page 38 Page 48 Page 60 Safeguarding public health In pursuit of Robinson Crusoe The CJEU clarifies the effects in the wake of hegemonic Kristina Björnerstedt of skinny labelling intellectual property rights and Gunnel Nilsson Sofia Bergenstråhle Katarina Foss-Solbrekk Page 94 and Valter Gran Page 76 Page 98 Editorial Preface “Some industries are different but some are more different than others. The discusses how developing countries’ access to medicines is EDITOR-IN-CHIEF pharmaceutical industry fits the latter category” (Scherer 1996:336). There is impeded by the patent system as well as how flexibilities in really no other industry where the nature of the products, the economics of the international and national legal framework contribute Silvia A. Carretta research and development as well as the market structure and the societal to this end. The article shows that while exceptions to implications of the industry’s strategic decisions are as unique as in the patent rights might not be as effective, they have however pharmaceutical industry. Furthermore, there is no other industry that tests triggered a very interesting development of voluntary the boundaries and effects of intellectual property (IP) rights on a national and licensing, a company-centered initiative providing access international level as the pharmaceutical industry.
    [Show full text]