Skip to main content
Log in

Person Skilled in the Art in Synthetic Biology from Iraqi and Malaysian Perspectives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents the problem of a person skilled in the field of synthetic biology. The person skilled in the art is one of the notions which have to be revisited due to the multidisciplinary nature of synthetic biology which involves numerous fields. The article studies this problem from the perspectives of Iraqi and Malaysian patent laws. First, it conceptualizes synthetic biology and person skilled in the art. The Iraqi and Malaysian attitudes regarding person skilled in the art are then addressed. Afterwards, the paper points out the multidisciplinary nature of synthetic biology. In its last part, it discusses the person skilled in synthetic biology and how patent offices and courts deal with this point. Finally, the authors submit that the use of a team of skilled persons to substitute for a single technician would render the obviousness test a subjective assessment dependent on the inventor. The level of non-obviousness would differ in similar cases simply because of the number of inventors. Consequently, the suggestion of having a hypothetical team instead of one person is irrelevant because skills that are attributed to the skilled notional person are not real skills. Thus, replacing him is easy, but the replacement would be fruitless because the skills attributed to a person or a team will be similar.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Synthetic biology has introduced many new topics, such as synthesized genes and proteins with extra amino acids.

  2. An example of these principles is that of the human genetic makeup that has been altered by the emergence of synthetic biology.

  3. http://www.organicconsumers.org/nanotech.cfm

  4. For instance, see section Article 2 in the Iraqi patent act, section 15 in the Malaysian patent act, and section 3 in the UK patent act of 1977.

  5. See section 103 in the US patent act.

  6. Section 3

  7. Art. 56 of European Patent Convention

  8. Section 15

  9. Article 1(1) of the Directive No. 1 1990 for the performance directive of the Iraqi Patent states, “An invention shall be considered innovative if it would not be obvious to skilled people with respect to the state-of-the-art at the filing date.”

  10. Neuberger J. said, “The court will normally be hearing from experts…” Amgen Parties v Roche Parties [2001] EWHC 433.

  11. Hoechst Celanese v BP [1997] FSR 547, p 563; Synthon BV v. Smithkline Beecham plc [2006] RPC 10, p 27

  12. Beloit v Valmet [1997] RPC 489, p 494, by Aldous LJ. See also Eli Lilly and Company V Human Genome Sciences, Inc. [2008] RPC 29, p 30.

  13. Raychem Corporation Patent, p 504, line 19; Schlumberger Holdings Ltd. v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2009] PRC 19

  14. Generics (UK) v Daiichi Pharmaceutical [2008] EWHC 2413 (pat) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2008/2413.html (24 February 2013)

  15. At para 40

  16. Ronic Corporation v Cadware Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 LNS 330

  17. At p 24

  18. Sanofi-Aventis (Malaysia) SDN BHD & ANOR v. Fresenius Kabi (Malaysia) SDN BHD & ANOR, [2012] 4 CLJ 532, at 547 and 548

  19. Ranbaxy (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. E.I Du Pont Nemours & CO [2012] 9 CLJ at 96

  20. Sanofi-Aventis (Malaysia) SDN BHD & ANOR v. Fresenius Kabi (Malyasia) SDN BHD & ANOR, [2012] 4 CLJ 532, at 574

  21. At p 727

  22. Boehringer Mannheim v Genzyme [1993] RPC 716 at p 727; Amgen Parties v. Roche Parties [2001] EWHC Patents 433

  23. Genentechs Patent, 278, (Mustill LJ)

  24. Dillon J. in Genentech patent [1989] at p 241; see the same point in Nokia GmbH v Ipcom GmbH & Co. KG [2009] EWHC 3482 (Pat).

  25. This statement was delivered by Laddie J. in Pfizer Ltd.’s patent [2001].

  26. Genentech Inc., Patent [1989] RPC 147, at p 214

References

  1. Maclurcan DC (2009) Southern roles in global nanotechnology innovation: perspectives from Thailand and Australia. NanoEthics 3(2):137–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Althabhawi N, Zainol Z (2013) Patentable novelty in nanotechnology inventions: a legal study in Iraq and Malaysia. NanoEthics 7(2):121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1(3):185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yeh BJ, Lim WA (2007) Synthetic biology: lessons from the history of synthetic organic chemistry. Nat Chem Biol 3(9):521–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. Poinat, Paris

  6. Szybalski W (1974) In vivo and in vitro initiation of transcription. Adv Exp Med Biol 44(1):23–24

  7. EGE (2009) Ethics of synthetic biology. https://www.erasynbio.eu/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_15/ege__opinion25_en.pdf

  8. Nose A (2010) The impact of patenting on synthetic biology inventions. Master thesis, Tilburg University

  9. Balmer A, Martin P (2008) Synthetic biology. Social and Ethical Challenges. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/jrul/item/?pid=uk-ac-man-scw:131890. Accessed 26 Jan 2017

  10. Bhutkar A (2005) Synthetic biology: navigating the challenges ahead. J Biolaw Bus 8(2):19–29

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Lorenzo V, Danchin A (2008) Synthetic biology: discovering new worlds and new words. EMBO Rep 9(9):822–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bentley L, Sherman B (2009) Intellectual property law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rich GS (2004) Laying the ghost of the invention requirement. Fed Cir BJ 14(163) (reprint; orig. 1972)

  14. Cornish W, Llewelyn D (2007) Intellectual property, 6th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Madieha bt Abdul Ghani Azmi I (2003) Patent law in Malaysia: cases and commentary. Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Selangor

  16. Brune H, Ernst H, Grunwald A, Grünwald W, Hofmann H, Krug H et al (2006) Nanotechnology: assessment and perspectives, vol 27. Springer, Heidelberg

  17. Halluin AP, Westin LP (2004) Nanotechnology: the importance of intellectual property rights in an emerging technology. J Pat & Trademark Off Soc'y 86(220):220–236

  18. Schellekens M (2010) Patenting nanotechnology in Europe: making a good start? An analysis of issues in law and regulation. J World Intellect Prop 13(1):47–76

  19. Bainbridge D (2002) Intellectual property, 5th edn. Pearson, England

    Google Scholar 

  20. Su Y-C (2009) What about know-how: heightened obviousness and lowered disclosure is not a panacea to the American patent system for biotechnology medication and pharmaceutical inventions in the post-KSR era. Marq Intell Prop L Rev 14(2): article 9

  21. Colston C (1999) Principles of intellectual property law. Cavendish, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zainol, Z.A., Althabhawi, N.M. Person Skilled in the Art in Synthetic Biology from Iraqi and Malaysian Perspectives. Nanoethics 12, 55–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0311-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-018-0311-3

Keywords

Navigation