Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 27–39

United States patent prior art rules and the neem controversy: a case of subject-matter imperialism?

  • SHAYANA Kadidal
Article

Abstract

A recent United States patent covering an improvement to the naturally-occurring pesticide in neem tree seed oil might have been rejected as 'obvious' if United States patent law recognized certain forms of prior inventive activity on a par with similar activity occurring within the United States' borders. But the US only recognizes prior 'knowledge, use or invention' as blocking a claim to a patent when those activities take place within US borders, or are evidenced by publications accessible in the US, or, more commonly, by foreign patents. Neither of these last forms of tangible 'prior art' is likely to be available to block patents on biodiversity inventions – most notably because of the fact that most developing nations do not allow patents on pharmaceutical or agricultural inventions, categories subsuming most biodiversity-related advances. Although the United States patent only has direct force within the United States, it is nonetheless highly significant to this global dispute, since the United States and other developed nations stand to be the major markets for the end-products of neem. This paper argues that the border-drawing distinctions in US patent law are archaic, counter to stated policy directives and are disproportionately influencing the developing world's stance towards GATT and its intellectual property rights provisions.

patents neem biodiversity: legal aspects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (Opinions of United States federal courts are ordered by case name, in italics.) 37 C.F.R. § 1.671, 'Evidence Must Comply with Rules.'Google Scholar
  2. [1790 Patents] Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, §1, 1 Stat. 109, 110.Google Scholar
  3. [1793 Patents] Act of Feb. 21, 1793, ch. 11, §1, 1 Stat. 318, 319.Google Scholar
  4. [1800 Patents] Act of Apr. 17, 1800, ch. 25, §1, 2 Stat. 37, 38.Google Scholar
  5. [1836 Patents] Act of July 4th, 1836, ch. 357, § 12, 5 Stat. 117, 121-22; §§ 7, 15, 5 Stat. at 119-20, 123.Google Scholar
  6. Act of August 8, 1946, § 9, 60 Stat. 943, creating then-35 U.S.C. § 109 (1946), current 35 U.S.C. § 104 (West, 1988).Google Scholar
  7. Aharonian, G. (1996) Internet Patent News Service (Jul. 24), available in usenet: misc.int-property. In re Borst (1965) 345 F.2d 851, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 554 (C.C.P.A. 1965). 36 KadidalGoogle Scholar
  8. Bliss, E.W. Co V. Southern Can Co., 251 F. 903, 907-8 (D. Md. 1918), aff'd 265 F. 1018 (4th Cir. 1920).Google Scholar
  9. Brownlee, L.M. (1990) Trade Secret Use of Patentable Inventions, Prior User Rights and Patent Law Harmonization: An Analysis and Proposal. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc. 72, 523, 533 n.51.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, J.F. (1995) Tradition in India vs. a Patent in the US N.Y. Times (Sep. 15) at D4.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, C.G. et al. (1992) Storage-stable azadirachtin formulation, US Patent No. 5,124,349 (Jun. 23, 1992).Google Scholar
  12. Carter Products Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1955) 130 F. Supp. 557, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 314 (D. Md. 1955), aff'd 230 F.2d 855, 108 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383 (4th. Cir. 1956) (typewritten Argentine patent document could not qualify as printed; using expert testimony to determine foreign law, patent itself non-enabling). (See also string citation given in In re Tenney, 254 F.2d 619, 624 (C.C.P.A. 1958).)Google Scholar
  13. Chisum, D.S. (1980) Foreign Activity: Its Effect on Patentability Under [sic] United States Law. Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 11 26, 27-28, 36.Google Scholar
  14. Chisum, D.S. (1997) Patents: A Treatise on the Law of Patentability, Validity and Infringement. Seven volumes.Google Scholar
  15. Coffin v. Ogden (1874) 85 US (18 Wall.) 120, 21 L. Ed. 821 (embryonic, inchoate, or unconsummated devices not anticipating).Google Scholar
  16. Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (1965) 348 F.2d 949, 950, 146 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 404, 406 (Ct. Cl. 1965).Google Scholar
  17. Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chem. Corp. (1928) 276 US 358.Google Scholar
  18. Das, S.K. and Cohly, H.H.P. (1993) Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing, US Patent No. 5,401,504 (Dec. 28, 1993) (named inventors are non-resident Indian citizens).Google Scholar
  19. Djerassi, C. (1984) Making Drugs (and soaking the poor?) Science 310, 517.Google Scholar
  20. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1980) 620 F.2d 1247, 1265 (8th Cir. 1980) (error to introduce foreign prior art as bearing on "state of the Art'; courts need to distinguish clearly prior use qua prior art versus being 'merely one possible indicium of obviousness').Google Scholar
  21. Electric Storage Battery v. Shimadzu (1939) 307 US 5, 41 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 155 (1939). Shimadzu v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 17 F. Supp. 42 (E.D.Pa. 1936).Google Scholar
  22. European Patent Convention, Art. 54(2).Google Scholar
  23. Full Mold Process, Inc. v. Central Iron Foundry Co. (1980) 489 F. Supp. 893, 900, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 650, 656 (E.D. Mich. 1980).Google Scholar
  24. Garrity, J. (1991) The American Nation 376 (7th edn., 1991).Google Scholar
  25. Gayler v. Wilder (1851) 51 U.S. (10 How.) 477, 13 L.Ed. 504 (1851).Google Scholar
  26. German Patent Law of Dec. 16, 1980, Art. 2, Art. 3(1), in 2D Sinnott, infra.Google Scholar
  27. Gramsci, A. (1918) Universal Language and Esperanto. In History, Philosophy and Culture in the Young Gramsci 29–33 (Piccone and Cavalcanti, eds., 1976).Google Scholar
  28. Gulliksen v. Halberg (1937) 75 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 252 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1937), and more recently, Hamilton Laboratories Inc. v. Massengill, 111 F.2d 584, 45 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 594 (6th Cir. 1940); Ex parte Hershberger, 96 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 54 (Bd. App. 1952) (restriction on copying no bar); In re Bayer 568 F.2d 1357, 196 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 670 (C.C.P.A. 1978).Google Scholar
  29. Hague Convention [(1970)] on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, done at The Hague, Mar. 18, 1970, entered into force Oct. 7, 1972, 8 I.L.M. 37 (1969), TIAS 7444, 23 U.S.T. 2555.Google Scholar
  30. Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. (1986) 802 F.2d 1367, 231 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 81 (Fed. Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
  31. I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp. (1966) 250 F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 537, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).Google Scholar
  32. The [Indian] Patents Act, 1970 (India) Ch. II: 'Inventions not patentable...': §§ 5(a)(b) (excluding all products capable of use as food, medicine or other drugs, or any products of chemical processes, although the processes leading to such products may be patented); §§ 3(h) and 3(i) (prohibiting patents on medical, veterinary or agricultural treatment methods which are curative or increase the economic value of the treated products), available in 2E Sinnott, infra.Google Scholar
  33. Jorda, K.F. (1979) The Rights of the First Inventor-Trade Secret User As Against Those of the Second Inventor-Patentee. (Part II) J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc. 61, 593.Google Scholar
  34. Judson v. Moore (1859) 14 F. Cas. 17, 21 (No. 7,569) (C.C. S.D. Oh. 1859) ('mere conversation' insufficient); Corser v. Brattleboro Overall Co., 93 F. 807, 808 (C.C. D. Vt. 1899) ('merely oral and casual suggestion' insufficient, especially when disclosure is fragmentary); Bishop & Babcock Mfg. Co. v. Western Auto Supply Co., 105 F.2d 886, 888 (6th Cir. 1939) (unpublished written disclosure has evidentiary value, given other evidence).Google Scholar
  35. Kadidal, S. (1996) Digestion as Infringement. J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc 78, 241, 271 n.160.Google Scholar
  36. In re Kehl (1939) 101 F.2d 193 (C.C.P.A. 1939) (inoperative prior art device may anticipate if defect could have been cured with mere mechanical (that is, non-inventive) skill).Google Scholar
  37. Lednicer, D. and Mitscher, L.A. (1977) The Organic Chemistry of Drug Synthesis Google Scholar
  38. McGirk, T. (1995) India turns its back on Western ways. The Independent (Sep. 29) at 16.Google Scholar
  39. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Research Medical Inc. (1988) 6 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1401, 1409-10 (D. Utah, 1988).Google Scholar
  40. NRC (National Research Council) and Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy (India) (1992) Neem: A Tree For Solving Global Problems. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, P.L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2113 (Dec. 8, 1993).Google Scholar
  42. Oddi, A.S. (1987) The International Patent System and Third World Development: Reality or Myth? 1987 Duke L.J. 831 (instituting a patent system not necessarily beneficial to economic development in underdeveloped nations.).Google Scholar
  43. Patent Cooperation Treaty, done at Washington, DC, Jun. 19, 1970, 9 I.L.M. 978 (1970), entered into force Jan 24, 1978, effective, excluding Ch. II, Mar. 29, 1978, TIAS 8733, 28 U.S.T. 7645, Ch. II, effective Jul. 1, 1987, P.L. 99-616, 100 Stat. 3485. Rule 33.1 (Relevant prior art for the international search), Regulations Under the PCT as Amended, Apr. 14, 1978, in 2A Sinnott, infra, App. 3-249, 3–285 (1993).Google Scholar
  44. President's Co>mission on the Patent System (1966) 'To Promote the Progress of the...Useful Arts' In An Age of Exploding Technology, p.Google Scholar
  45. Robbins, F.E. (1979) The Rights of the First Inventor-Trade Secret User As Against Those of the Second Inventor-Patentee. (Part I) J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc. 61, 574.Google Scholar
  46. Rosaire V. Baroid Sales Division, Natural Land Co., (1955) 218 F.2d 72, 75, 104 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 100, 102 (5th Cir., 1955).Google Scholar
  47. Rose, G. (1979) Do You Have a 'Printed Publication?' If Not, Do You Have Evidence of Prior 'Knowledge or Use?' J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc. 61, 643.Google Scholar
  48. Rothschild, S.J. and White, T.P. (1988) Printed Publication: What is it Now? J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc. 70, 42.Google Scholar
  49. Saltus, R. (1995) US firm is accused of 'usurping' patent. Boston Globe (Sep. 13) p. 6.Google Scholar
  50. Sealectro Corp. v. L.V.C. Indus., Inc. (1967) 271 F. Supp. 835, 153 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 610 (E.D.N.Y. 1967) (was joint invention by American and Englishman in this country for purposes of In-vention Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 184-85?).Google Scholar
  51. In re Schlittler (1956) 234 F.2d 882, 110 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304 (C.C.P.A. 1956).Google Scholar
  52. Shaw v. Cooper (1833) 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 292, 8 L. Ed. 589 (1833).Google Scholar
  53. Shukla, H. (1995) Indians challenge US pesticide patent, UPI-International (Sep. 14).Google Scholar
  54. Sinnott, J. (1997) World Patent Law and Practice. Multiple volumes.Google Scholar
  55. [Strasbourg] Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention, done at Strasbourg, Nov. 27, 1963, Art. 4(2), available in 2A Sinnott, infra, App. 3-116, 3-117.Google Scholar
  56. In re Tenney (1958) 254 F.2d 619, 624, 625, 117 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 348, 353, 354 (C.C.P.A. 1958).Google Scholar
  57. TRIPS Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement, GATT Doc. MTN/FA IIA1C (1994), 33 I.L.M. 81 (1994), HR Doc. No. 316 1621 (103d US Congress, 2d Sess., 1994).Google Scholar
  58. Totten, L.B. (1995) Neem It; Natural insecticide making waves, news, Star-Tribune (Apr. 3) p. 10.Google Scholar
  59. Tyler Refrigeration Corp. v. Kysor Indus. (1982) 553 F. Supp. 279, 282 (D. Del. 1982), 601 F. Supp. 590 (D. Del. 1985), aff'd 777 F.2d 687 (Fed. Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  60. United States Patent Act (1997) 35 U.S.C. §§ 1-376.Google Scholar
  61. United States v. Adams (1966) 383 U.S. 39 (1966) (inoperable or failed invention not anticipating).Google Scholar
  62. Uruguay Round Agreements Act (1993) P.L. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4982 (Dec. 8, 1993), effective as of 1 January 1996.Google Scholar
  63. U.S. Patent Storm Warning in India. Marketletter (May 29, 1995).Google Scholar
  64. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California (1987) 814 F.2d 628, 632 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 484 US 827 (1987) (even if a prior art inventor does not recognize a function of process, it can anticipate if function was inherent).Google Scholar
  65. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) (1988) Exclusions from Patent Protection, Memorandum of the International Bureau of WIPO, Indus. Prop. 27, 192, 192-93.Google Scholar
  66. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc. (1983) 721 F.2d 1540, 1549, 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  67. In re Wyer (1981) 655 F.2d 221, 226, 210 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 790, 794 (C.C.P.A. 1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • SHAYANA Kadidal
    • 1
  1. 1.SayvilleUnited States

Personalised recommendations