Advertisement

Patentability of Biotechnology: A Comparative Study with Regard to the USA, European Union, Canada and India

Chapter
  • 1.5k Downloads

Abstract

Modern biotechnological advances have posed new challenges before the existing patent laws of countries as biotechnological inventions differ markedly from chemical and mechanical inventions that have been the traditional subject matter of patents. With the development of human genomics and success of the Human Genome Project, the gene becomes more important because of its informational content rather than its material qualities (physical attributes). Patent is a subject primarily concerned with questions inside a jurisdiction. Although the adoption and ratification of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) has brought a unified character to patent laws of member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to a certain extent, these countries have adopted different approaches regarding biotechnology patents in tune with their national policies. As a result, the scope and coverage of biotechnology patents vary from country to country. Even in countries having similar patent laws such as the USA and Canada, interpretations of such laws by courts vary significantly. These variations among countries are important for the proper understanding of the trends in biotech patents. Therefore, the present chapter makes a comparative study of patent laws and practices relating to biotechnology patents in the USA, Canada, European Union and India in order to collate the common issues and the differences among and between them. The USA being a pioneer in biotechnology research exerts great influence upon other countries; the European Union reflects the unified approach of different member states in a politically diversified system; Canada makes a distinction between patenting of higher life forms and lower life forms and India represents the concerns of developing countries.

Keywords

Patent law Biotechnology Human gene The USA European Union Canada India Patentable subject matter Novelty Non-obviousness (inventive step) Utility (industrial applicability) Written description Ordre public and morality 

References

  1. Boettiger Sara and Bennet Alan B (2006) Bayh-Dole: If We Know Then What We Know Now. 24 Nature Biotechnology 24: 320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Karen I. Boyd (1997) Non-obviousness and the Biotechnology Industry: A Proposal for a Doctrine of Economic Obviousness Berkeley Technology Law Journal 12: 311. Available via West Law. www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed 15 May 2011
  3. Bryan Erin (2009) Gene Protection: How Much is too much? Comparing the Scope of Patent Protection for Gene Sequences Between the United States and Germany. Journal of High Technology Law 9: 52Google Scholar
  4. Bud Robert (1991) Biotechnology in Twentieth Century. Social Studies of Science 21: 422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dan L. Burk (1991) Biotechnology and Patent Law: Fitting Innovation to Procrustean Bed. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 17: 1. Available via West Law. www.international.westlaw.com Accessed 15 May 2011
  6. Cain Brian (2003a) Legal Aspects of Genetic Technology. Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, London p. 122Google Scholar
  7. Cain Brian (2003b) Legal Aspects of Genetic Technology. Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (2002) Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues. CBAC, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (2003) Advisory Memorandum: Higher Life Forms and the Patent Act, Ottawa: Canadian Advisory CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  10. Conley John M. (2009) Gene Patents and the Product of Nature Doctrine. Chicago -Kent Law Review 84: 115Google Scholar
  11. Conley John & Vorhaus Dan (2011a) Pig Return to Earth: Federal Circuit Reinstates Most-But Not All-of Myriad’s Patents. Genomics Law Report web blog post, 31 July 2011 http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2011/07/31/pigs-return-to-earth-federal-circuit-reinstates-most-but-not-all-of-myriads-patents/. Accessed 30 August 2011
  12. Conley John & Vorhaus Dan (2011b) Prometheus Returns to the Supreme Court, Medical Patent Speculation Intensifies: Genomics Law Report web blog post, (12 June 2011) http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2011/06/22/prometheus-returns-to-the-supreme-court-medical-method-patent-speculation-intensifies/. Accessed 31 August 2011
  13. Crane Adam (2009) Of Mice and Man: Patentability of Genetic material and the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 18: 102Google Scholar
  14. Davis Paula K., Kelley James J., Caltrider Steven P. et al. (2005) ESTs stumble at the utility threshold. Nature Biotechnology 23: 1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Demaine Linda J. & Fellmeth Aaron Xavier (2002) Reinventing the Double Helix: A Novel and Non-Obvious Reconceptualization of the Biotechnology Patent. Stanford Law Review 55: 318 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutfield Graham (2009) Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries- Past, Present and Future 2nd edn. World Scientific Co. Pte. Ltd, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eisenberg Rebecca S. (2002) Why the Gene Patenting Controversy Persists. Academic Medicine 77: 1382Google Scholar
  18. Eisenberg Rebecca (2003) Patenting genome research tools and the law. C. R. Biologies 326: 1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eisenberg Rebecca (2006) The story of Diamond v. Chakrabarty: technological change and the subject matter boundaries of the patent system. In: Ginsberg Jane and Dreyfuss Rochelle Cooper (eds.), Intellectual Property Stories. Foundation Press, New York p. 349Google Scholar
  20. Garland Steven B. and Smordin Sandee (2003) The Harvard Mouse Decision And Its Future Implications. Canadian Business Law Journal 39: 162Google Scholar
  21. Gold E. Richard (2009a) The Ethics of Biotechnological Intellectual Property. In: Gold E. Richard & Knoppers Bartha Maria (eds.), Biotechnology IP & Ethics. Lexis Nexis Canada Inc., Markham, Ontario 22Google Scholar
  22. Gold Richard (2009b) The Ethics of Biotechnological Intellectual Property. In: Gold E. Richard & Knoppers Bartha Maria (eds.) Biotechnology IP & Ethics Lexis Nexis Canada Inc., Markham, Ontario p. 20–21Google Scholar
  23. Goldstein Jorge A. & Elina Gold Elina (2002) Human Gene Patents. Academic Medicine 77:1316 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gulliford Michael John (2004) Much Ado About Gene Patents: The Role of Forseeabiliity. Seton Hall Review 34: 720–721 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. Holman Christopher M. (2007) Patent border wars: defining the boundary between scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. TRENDS in Biotechnology 25: 542 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. Indian Patent Office, Annual Report (2007–08). http://ipindia.gov.in/cgpdtm/AnnualReport_English_2007-2008.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2012
  27. Jameson Samantha A. (2009) A Comparison of the Patentability and Patent Scope of Biotechnological Inventions in the United States and the European Union. American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal 35: 193–202Google Scholar
  28. Jauhar Ameen & Narnaulia Swati (2010) Patenting Life the American, European and Indian Way. 15 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 15: 60Google Scholar
  29. Kankanala Kalyan C. (2007) Genetic Patent: Law and Strategy. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Noida, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Kevles Daniel J. (2011) Patenting Life: A Historical Overview of Law, Interests, and Ethics. http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/lauer/MIS641b/Readings/patenting%20life.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2011
  31. Klein Roger D (2007) Gene Patents and Genetic Testing in the United States. Nature Biotechnology 25: 989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakshmikumaran Malthi (2007) Patenting of Genetic Inventions. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 12: 51Google Scholar
  33. Law Grace S. & Marles Jennifer A. (2004) Monsanto v. Schmeiser: Patent Protection for Genetically Modified Genes and Cells in Canada. Health Law Review 13: 44.Google Scholar
  34. Lemley Mark, Things You Should Care About in the New Patent Statute http://ssrn.com/abstract=1929044 20 September 2011
  35. Manual Patent Practice and Procedure, 2005Google Scholar
  36. Stephen A. Merrill & Ann-Marie Mazza (eds) 2006a Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research- Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C 76.Google Scholar
  37. Merrill Stephen A. & Mazza Ann-Marie (eds.) (2006b) Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research- Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 72Google Scholar
  38. Mueller Janice M. (2008) Biotechnology Patenting in India: Will Bio-Generics Lead a “Sunrise Industry” to Bio-innovation? University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 75: 437–490; University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-02. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087131. Accessed 29 July 2012
  39. Anita Nador, The Patenting of Biotechnology in Canada. http://www.samedanltd.com/magazine/12/issue/44/article/1245. Accessed 29 July 2012
  40. Nese Bryan (2009) Bilski on Biotech: The Potential For Limiting The Negative Impact Of Gene Patents. California Western Law Review 46: 152Google Scholar
  41. Nuffield Council of Bioethics (2002) The ethics of patenting DNA, 5.24. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/The%20ethics%20of%20patenting%20DNA%20a%20discussion%20paper.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2011
  42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999) Modern Biotechnology and the OECD http://www.oecd.org/SearchResult/0,3400,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 15 May 2011
  43. Perry Mark (2008) Pasteur to Monsanto: Approaches to Patenting Life in Canada. In: Gendreau, Ysolde (Ed.) An Emerging Intellectual Property Paradigm—Perspectives From Canada Ch. 4,72 Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Pila Justine (2003) Bound Futures: Patent Law and Modern Biotechnology 9.2 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 9.2. http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume92/pila.pdf. Accessed17 May 2011
  45. Rai, Arti. K. (1999) Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology: Addressing New Technology. Wake Forest Law Review 34: 833Google Scholar
  46. Rimmer Matthew (2008) Intellectual Property and Biotechnology: Biological Inventions. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Massachsetts p. 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yelpaala Kojo (2000) Owning the Secret of Life: Biotechnology and Property Rights Revisited” 32 McGeorge Law Review 32: 11–219 Available via West Law. www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed 15 May 2011
  48. Zahl Adrian (2004) Patenting of “Higher Life Forms in Canada. Biotechnology Law Report 23: 556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zekos Georgios I. (2006) Nanotechnology and Biotechnology Patents. International Journal of Law and Information technology 14: 310. www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed 19 May 2008.

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity Law SchoolNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations