DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges to the Patenting of “Essentially Biological Processes” in India

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenges to the Patenting of “Essentially Biological Processes” in India 14 EXPERT COMMENT LSIPR Newsletter 10:14 Challenges to the patenting of “essentially biological processes” in India A recent decision from the IPAB on the patent eligibility of biological processes could change the biotech playing field in India, say Swarup Kumar and Shivaarti Bajaj. ommenting on the US Supreme made by researchers at Harvard University does provide leverage for member countries Court’s historic decision to develop cancer in order to aid the testing to define expressions such as “essentially Diamond v Chakrabarty, 447 US of drugs for cancer treatment. Patents were biological processes” or set specific criteria for 303 (1980), which permitted the granted on different facets of the invention their patentability. Cpatenting of life forms, Justice Warren Burger in Europe, Canada and the US among other said: “No one will be able to deter the scientific jurisdictions, as each jurisdiction had its own The Indian scenario mind from probing into the unknown any law and practice. In India, the Patents (Amendment) Act 2002 more than Canute could command the tides”. For instance, the European Patent Office dealt introduced Section 3(j) which prohibits Probing into the unknown and the possibility with the issue of morality through a utilitarian patenting of “plants and animals in whole or of patenting one’s invention is what has balancing test that reviewed potential benefits any part thereof other than microorganisms catalysed scientific advancement in all fields of of the invention—the treatment of cancer and but including seeds, varieties and species and technology. medical research—against its negative aspects. essentially biological processes for production Nonetheless, the grant of patents in one of the On the other hand, in Canada, the patent and propagation of plants and animals.” The most demanding fields—for life forms, biological office initially rejected the patent claims for expression “essentially biological process” materials and biological processes—continues Oncomouse as such but eventually allowed has not been specifically defined either in the to cause apprehension in view of the associated claims directed to the process for obtaining the statute or through judicial decisions or the ethical, moral and political sensitivities. Oncomouse: the “biological process”. manual of the patent office. On the other hand, it would appear that the US and the EU have If one looks at international treaties to find Oncomouse case taken steps towards defining in the statute uniform benchmarks in this area, there is or through judicial pronouncements the The primary ground for opposing the much room for divergence. Illustratively, the broad criteria for what constitute “essentially patenting of life forms and essentially Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property biological processes”. biological processes has been the position Rights (TRIPS) Agreement allows member that ownership of or right over life forms countries to exclude certain subject matter In 2002, the path-breaking Dimminaco case and naturally occurring biological processes from patentability under Article 27.3. Such (Dimminaco v Controller of Patents and would be detrimental to society and may excluded subject matter covers “essentially Designs & Others) came before the Calcutta influence public morality and/or order. The biological processes”. However, in order to High Court and opened the doors to the Oncomouse case related to a transgenic mouse define the threshold of patentability, TRIPS grant of patents to inventions where the final www.lifesciencesipreview.com LSIPR Newsletter 10:14 EXPERT COMMENT 15 product of the claimed process contained salt tolerance, or drought tolerance” based on intervention was held not to change the position living microorganisms. The matter related to a the following key grounds: on patentability as the invention was otherwise process for the preparation of a live attenuated 1. That the subject matter of claims was found by the IPAB to be unpatentable in view of vaccine for protecting poultry against bursitis considered to lack inventive step in view of obviousness and new use of known substance. infection. According to the Controller of prior art documents cited in the office action; Nevertheless, the fact that the human Patents, the claimed process was only a natural intervention factor—in the manner disclosed process devoid of any manufacturing activity 2. That the claims in the application were in the specification—was not only considered and the end product contained live attenuated not considered to qualify as an invention. but also formed the basis of the IPAB’s decision material. Thus, the claims were considered The reason offered for rejection was that marks a new chapter in the field of biotech unpatentable. the structure and function of a cold shock protein was disclosed in the cited prior art, process patents in India. The significance of Hearing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court and was, therefore, obvious to a person this decision becomes more apparent when it broke new ground with its observation that “if skilled in the art to make a transgenic plant; is contrasted with the “broccoli and tomato” the end product is a commercial and vendible (G 2/07 and G 1/08) cases in which the 3. The claimed invention was considered entity, and for that, presence of living virus / European Board of Appeal held that a process unpatentable as it was regarded as a mere microorganism in the end product is necessary, for production of plants comprising the steps application of an already known cold shock it cannot be a bar to its patentability.” of crossing and selection is excluded from protein in producing cold stress tolerant patentability even if it contains an additional The Indian Patent Office issued biotechnology plants as well as plants tolerant to heat, salt step of a technical nature. Interestingly, the guidelines in March 2013, but with no and drought conditions; and reference as to what constitutes “essentially inclusion of an act of human intervention on biological processes”. In fact, the guidelines 4. Last but not least, it was held that the claims a plant cell and production in that plant cell list several illustrative examples in relation to in the Monsanto patent application fell of some changes (technical) was considered Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act. One of them under the proscription of Section 3(j) of enough to render process claims patentable in states that a claimed method involving the step the Patent Act. The primary reason offered the Monsanto case. for rejection under this ground was that of cross-breeding for producing pure hybrid In view of such a positive interpretation the claims related to “essentially biological seeds, plants and crops would be an essentially of Section 3(j) by the IPAB, jurists, processes” of regeneration and selection, biological process and thus not allowable biotechnologists and practitioners will have which in turn included growing of plants in under Section 3(j). But what this example a crucial role to play in developing criteria specific stress conditions. fails to clarify is that if there are intermittent as to what constitutes “essentially biological steps in the claimed method, which involve Dissatisfied by the controller’s decision, processes” and what does not. The good news substantial human intervention, whether or Monsanto filed an appeal before the IPAB. is that subject matter that was once considered not they would render the claimed method Considering the matter after hearing both to fall beyond the realm of patentability is now patentable. parties, the board upheld the decision of the beginning to be seen with a more nuanced eye Indian Patent Office on the first three grounds In contrast, if one looks to the European Patent and the stage looks set for interesting times listed above but, significantly, overruled the Convention, essentially biological processes as ahead in biotech jurisprudence. n patent office’s findings on Section 3(j). The IPAB provided by Article 53(b) have been defined by affirmed that the claimed method of the case Swarup Kumar is partner-designate at Rule 23(b) (5) which states that “a process for the being considered included an act of human Remfry & Sagar. He can be contacted at: production of plants and animals is essentially intervention on a plant cell and produced in that [email protected] biological, if it consists entirely of natural plant cell some changes, which took it outside Shivaarti Bajaj is a senior associate at phenomena such as crossing or selection.” The the proscription of Section 3(j). expression “entirely” would appear to leave scope Remfry & Sagar. She can be contacted at: [email protected] for interpretation open. Conclusion Monsanto case Although Monsanto’s patent was rejected on almost all key grounds, the IPAB’s decision is The case of Monsanto Technology v Controller “The fact that the a landmark one. The interpretation of Section General of Patents (2013) brought this 3(j) outlines a significantly forward-looking human intervention particular aspect into focus before the approach towards defining the elusive expression Indian Intellectual Property Appellate Board factor was not only “essentially biological processes”. In this decision, (IPAB) last July. Although the appeal filed by a series of individual steps involving human considered but also Monsanto against the patent office’s decision intervention was considered sufficient to overrule was eventually rejected by the IPAB, the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms
    Creating Life from Scratch: The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms Michael Saunders* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 75 II. PATENTING MICROBIAL LIFE—CHAKRABARTY ................................ 77 III. PATENTING MULTICELLULAR LIFE—HARVARD ONCOMOUSE .......... 80 IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY .......................................... 83 A. Single-Celled Synthetic Organisms ......................................... 83 B. Multicellular Synthetic Organisms .......................................... 86 V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 88 I. INTRODUCTION Published in May 2007, U.S. application no. 20070122826 (Venter patent) describes a minimally operative genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium consisting of 381 genes, which the inventors believe to be essential for the survival of the bacterium in an environment containing all the necessary nutrients and free from stress.1 However, the team of inventors from the J. Craig Venter Institute is trying to accomplish something more than just the usual patenting of genes; they intend to create and patent the world’s first artificial organism. The team has already cleared two of the three major hurdles on its way to constructing this first synthetic organism. In January 2008, they announced completion of the second step, the laboratory synthesis of the entire 582,970 base pairs of the genome described in the patent above.2 What remains is the third and final step of inserting this human-made genome into a bacterial cell chassis and “booting up” the organism.3 Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, lead researchers on the team have been discussing the creation of synthetic life since 1995, when their team published the first complete genome sequence of a living * © 2008 Michael Saunders. J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.S. 2003, Bucknell University. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Confusing Patent Eligibility
    CONFUSING PATENT ELIGIBILITY DAVID 0. TAYLOR* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 158 I. CODIFYING PATENT ELIGIBILITY ....................... 164 A. The FirstPatent Statute ........................... 164 B. The Patent Statute Between 1793 and 1952................... 166 C. The Modern Patent Statute ................ ..... 170 D. Lessons About Eligibility Law ................... 174 II. UNRAVELING PATENT ELIGIBILITY. ........ ............. 178 A. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs............ 178 B. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l .......... .......... 184 III. UNDERLYING CONFUSION ........................... 186 A. The Requirements of Patentability.................................. 186 B. Claim Breadth............................ 188 1. The Supreme Court's Underlying Concerns............ 189 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address the Concerns with Claim Breadth .............. 191 3. The Supreme Court Wrongly Rejected Use of Existing Statutory Requirements to Address Claim Breadth ..................................... 197 4. Even if § 101 Was Needed to Exclude Patenting of Natural Laws and Phenomena, A Simple Statutory Interpretation Would Do So .................... 212 C. Claim Abstractness ........................... 221 1. Problems with the Supreme Court's Test................221 2. Existing Statutory Requirements Address Abstractness, Yet the Supreme Court Has Not Even Addressed Them.............................. 223 IV. LACK OF ADMINISTRABILITY ....................... ....... 227 A. Whether a
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law: a Handbook for Congress
    Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46525 SUMMARY R46525 Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress September 16, 2020 A patent gives its owner the exclusive right to make, use, import, sell, or offer for sale the invention covered by the patent. The patent system has long been viewed as important to Kevin T. Richards encouraging American innovation by providing an incentive for inventors to create. Without a Legislative Attorney patent system, the reasoning goes, there would be little incentive for invention because anyone could freely copy the inventor’s innovation. Congressional action in recent years has underscored the importance of the patent system, including a major revision to the patent laws in 2011 in the form of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Congress has also demonstrated an interest in patents and pharmaceutical pricing; the types of inventions that may be patented (also referred to as “patentable subject matter”); and the potential impact of patents on a vaccine for COVID-19. As patent law continues to be an area of congressional interest, this report provides background and descriptions of several key patent law doctrines. The report first describes the various parts of a patent, including the specification (which describes the invention) and the claims (which set out the legal boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights). Next, the report provides detail on the basic doctrines governing patentability, enforcement, and patent validity. For patentability, the report details the various requirements that must be met before a patent is allowed to issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Horizon Book of Authorities
    PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENT ACT R.S.C. 1985, C. P-4, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF HORIZON PHARMA PLC (THE “RESPONDENT”) AND THE MEDICINE CYSTEAMINE BITARTRATE SOLD BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE TRADE NAME PROCYSBI® BOOK OF AUTHORITIES OF THE RESPONDENT (MOTION TO BIFURCATE, STRIKE EVIDENCE AND FOR THE INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS) Torys LLP 79 Wellington St. W., Suite 3000 Toronto ON M5K 1N2 Fax: 416.865.7380 Sheila R. Block Tel: 416.865.7319 [email protected] Andrew M. Shaughnessy Tel: 416.865.8171 [email protected] Rachael Saab Tel: 416.865.7676 [email protected] Stacey Reisman Tel: 416.865.7537 [email protected] Counsel to Respondent, Horizon Pharma PLC INDEX 1. Board Decision – Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the Medicine “Soliris” (September 20, 2017) 2. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 734 3. Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 1 4. Board Decision – Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the Medicine “Soliris” (March 29, 2016) 5. Mayne Pharma (Canada) Inc. v. Aventis Pharma Inc., 2005 FCA 50 6. P.S. Partsource Inc. v. Canadian Tire Corp., 2001 FCA 8 7. Harrop (Litigation Guardian of) v. Harrop, 2010 ONCA 390 8. Merck & Co v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 1511 9. Vancouver Airport Authority v. Commissioner of Competition, 2018 FCA 24 10. Merck & Co, Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FC 1242 11. H-D Michigan Inc. v. Berrada, 2007 FC 995 12. Roger T. Hughes, Arthur Renaud & Trent Horne, Canadian Federal Courts Practice 2019 (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2019) 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States Carol M
    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 13 | Issue 2 2007 Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States Carol M. Nielsen Michael R. Samardzija University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Carol M. Nielsen & Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 509 (2007). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol13/iss2/9 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING: IS IT A VIABLE SOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES? Carol M. Nielsen* Michael R. Samardzija** Cite as: Carol M. Nielsen and Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing: Is It a Viable Solution in the United States?, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 509 (2007), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volthirteen/nielsen&samardzija.pdf As technology continues to advance at a rapid pace, so do the number of patents that cover every aspect of making, using, and selling these innovations. In 1996, to compound the rapid change of technology, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that business methods are also patentable.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Harvard Mouse
    The Harvard Mouse or the transgenetic technique Term Paper Biology Georgina Cibula, 4e LIST of Contents Preface What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? What is especially interesting? What are our questions with respects to the chosen topic? Introduction What is the context of the chosen topic? What is the recent scientific history? Where and why is the technique used? Are there alternatice treatments? Description of engineering technique No institution visited Discussion What progress was made with the application of the chosen technique? What future research steps? Ethical aspects Summary References PREFACE What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? There are many reasons. One of them is that it’s a very interesting topic. It is fascinating, how you can increase or decrease the functionality of organisms. What is especially interesting? The intricacy. And that you can use the method not only for mice but for every organism. For example in the Green genetic engineering (to make plants more resistant) or for pharmaceuticals like human insulin. Some genes are responsible for the aging process. So if we can find those genes and deactivate them we would life longer. First successful experiments with animals where already made. What I also like about this topic is the big ethic question behind it. I mean in the end we use animals, often mice because of their similarity to our genes, to benefit of them. We intentional make them ill and lock them into small cages. But on the other hands medicaments can be tested or invented which can save many human lifes.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2))
    Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 2 Section 1 Novelty Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2)) Section 1 Novelty 1. Overview Patent Act Article 29(1) provides as the unpatentable cases (i) inventions that were publicly known, (ii) inventions that were publicly worked (iii) inventions that were described in a distributed publication or made available to the public through electric telecommunication lines in Japan or a foreign country prior to the filing of the patent application. The same paragraph provides that a patent shall not be granted for these publicly known (Note) inventions (inventions lacking novelty, hereinafter referred to as "prior art” in this chapter.). The patent system is provided to grant an exclusive right to the patentee in exchange for disclosure of the invention. Therefore, the invention which deserves the patent should be novel. This paragraph is provided to achieve such a purpose. This Section describes the determination of novelty for an invention of the patent applications to be examined (hereinafter referred to as "the present application" in this Section.) (Notes) The term "publicly known" generally falls under Article 29(1)(i), or under the 29(1)(i) to (iii), hereinafter the latter is applied. 2. Determination of Novelty Inventions subject to determination of novelty are claimed inventions. The examiner determines whether the claimed invention has novelty by comparing the claimed inventions and the prior art cited for determining novelty and an inventive step (the cited prior art) to identify the differences between them.
    [Show full text]
  • University-Industry Partnerships and the Licensing of the Harvard Mouse
    PATENTS Managing innovation: university-industry partnerships and the licensing of the Harvard mouse Sasha Blaug1,Colleen Chien1 & Michael J Shuster DuPont’s Oncomouse patent licensing program continues to cause a stir in academia and industry. ver the last several decades, technology restructuring in the 1980s resulting in optimized for mutual near- and long-term Oand technological innovation have reduced industry R&D spending and scarcer benefits to the parties? Recently this dialog gradually replaced manufacturing and agri- federal R&D funding. Increased technology has been focused on DuPont’s licensing of culture as the main drivers of the US econ- transfer has sparked a debate on univ- the transgenic ‘Harvard mouse,’ subse- omy. The unparalleled system of American ersities’ roles in the national economy: on quently trademarked as the Oncomouse6. research universities1 and their association the extent to which these relationships affect http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology with industry are important drivers of the the mission of universities to carry out The Oncomouse patents new economy. The relationship between and disseminate the results of basic DuPont’s patent licensing program for universities and industry is multifaceted, research, and on how universities can man- ‘Oncomouse technology’ has caused a stir in encompassing exchanges of knowledge, age their partnerships, collaborations and academia and industry for over a decade7. expertise, working culture and money. technology transfer without compromising These patents broadly claim transgenic Whereas the transfer of technology from their mission. nonhuman mammals expressing cancer- universities to industry has been going on In the basic research paradigm, inves- promoting oncogenes, a basic research tool for more than a century, ties between uni- tigators’ inquiries are directed toward dev- widely used in the fight against cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions
    Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions -name redacted- Visiting Scholar January 14, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R43266 Compulsory Licensing of Patented Inventions Summary The term “compulsory license” refers to the grant of permission for an enterprise seeking to use another’s intellectual property without the consent of its proprietor. The grant of a compulsory patent license typically requires the sanction of a governmental entity and provides for compensation to the patent owner. Compulsory licenses in the patent system most often relate to pharmaceuticals and other inventions pertaining to public health, but they potentially apply to any patented invention. U.S. law allows for the issuance of compulsory licenses in a number of circumstances, and also allows for circumstances that are arguably akin to a compulsory license. The Atomic Energy Act, Clean Air Act, and Plant Variety Protection Act provide for compulsory licensing, although these provisions have been used infrequently at best. The Bayh-Dole Act offers the federal government “march-in rights,” although these have not been invoked in the three decades since that legislation has been enacted. 28 U.S.C. Section 1498 provides the U.S. government with broad ability to use inventions patented by others. Compulsory licenses have also been awarded as a remedy for antitrust violations. Finally, a court may decline to award an injunction in favor of a prevailing patent owner during infringement litigation, an outcome that some observers believe is akin to the grant of a compulsory license. A number of international agreements to which the United States and its trading partners are signatories, including the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, World Trade Organization agreements, and certain free trade agreements, address compulsory licensing.
    [Show full text]
  • Biopatents – a Threat to the Use and Conservation of Agrobiodiversity?
    Advisory Board on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) Biopatents – A Threat to the Use and Conservation of Agrobiodiversity? Position Paper of the Advisory Board on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (Translation of German original paper) May 2010 Lead author Dr. Peter H. Feindt, Cardiff University Members of the Advisory Board on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the BMELV (05/2010) Prof. Dr. Bärbel Gerowitt, University of Rostock (Chair) Dr. Peter H. Feindt, Cardiff University, Great Britain (Vice Chair) Dr. Frank Begemann, Federal Office for Agriculture and Food, Bonn Prof. Dr. Leo Dempfle, Technical University Muinch (TUM) Dr. Jan Engels, Bioversity International, Italy Dr. Lothar Frese, Julius Kuehn-Institute, Quedlinburg Prof. Dr. Hans-Rolf Gregorius, University of Goettingen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Alois Heißenhuber, Technical University Muinch (TUM) Prof. Dr. Hans-Jörg Jacobsen, University of Hannover Dr. Alwin Janßen, Northwest German Forest Research Institute, Hann. Münden Dr. Ingrid Kissling-Näf, Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology, Switzerland Prof. Dr. Konrad Ott, University of Greifswald Prof. Dr. Lucia Reisch, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Prof. em. Dr. Werner Steffens, Deutscher Fischerei-Verband e. V., (German Fisheries Association), Bonn Dr. Steffen Weigend, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Mariensee Citation of this paper Peter H. Feindt, Advisory Board on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the BMELV, 2010: Biopatents – A Threat to the Use and Conservation of Agrobiodiversity? Position Paper of the Advisory Board on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), 36 pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
    E CDIP/13/10 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MARCH 27, 2014 Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Thirteenth Session Geneva, May 19 to 23, 2014 PATENT-RELATED FLEXIBILITIES IN THE MULTILATERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS - PART III prepared by the Secretariat 1. In the context of the discussions on Development Agenda Recommendation 14, Member States, at the eleventh session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) held from May 13 to 17, 2013, in Geneva, requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to prepare a document that covers two new patent-related flexibilities. 2. The present document addresses the requested two additional patent-related flexibilities. 3. The CDIP is invited to take note of the contents of this document and its Annexes. CDIP/13/10 page 2 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...…….….. 3 II. THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF PLANTS..…….…….…4 A. Introduction……..……………………………………………………………………….….4 B. The international legal framework………………………………………………………. 6 C. National and Regional implementation………………………………………………… 7 a) Excluding plants from patent protection……………………………………........ 8 b) Excluding plant varieties from patent protection………………………………... 8 c) Excluding both plant and plant varieties from patent protection……...……….. 9 d) Allowing the patentability of plants and/or plant varieties……………………… 9 e) Excluding essentially biological processes for the production of plants…….. 10 III. FLEXIBILITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PATENTABILITY, OR EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY, OF SOFTWARE-RELATED INVENTIONS………………………….…….…. 12 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….….…12 B. The International legal framework………………………………………………………13 C. National implementations……………………………………………………………….. 14 a) Explicit exclusion …………………………………………………………………. 14 b) Explicit inclusion…………………………………………………………………... 16 c) No specific provision……………………………………………………………… 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Biotechnology 2008
    guide to biotechnology 2008 research & development health bioethics innovate industrial & environmental food & agriculture biodefense Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW imagine Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 intellectual property 202.962.9200 (phone) 202.488.6301 (fax) bio.org inform bio.org The Guide to Biotechnology is compiled by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Editors Roxanna Guilford-Blake Debbie Strickland Contributors BIO Staff table of Contents Biotechnology: A Collection of Technologies 1 Regenerative Medicine ................................................. 36 What Is Biotechnology? .................................................. 1 Vaccines ....................................................................... 37 Cells and Biological Molecules ........................................ 1 Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals ........................................ 37 Therapeutic Development Overview .............................. 38 Biotechnology Industry Facts 2 Market Capitalization, 1994–2006 .................................. 3 Agricultural Production Applications 41 U.S. Biotech Industry Statistics: 1995–2006 ................... 3 Crop Biotechnology ...................................................... 41 U.S. Public Companies by Region, 2006 ........................ 4 Forest Biotechnology .................................................... 44 Total Financing, 1998–2007 (in billions of U.S. dollars) .... 4 Animal Biotechnology ................................................... 45 Biotech
    [Show full text]