Advertisement

Patentability of Biotechnology Under the International Patent Regime: Differentiation v. Harmonisation

Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads

Abstract

International patent regime faces a great challenge to cope up with the new biotechnological advances. The international patent regime struggles to provide effective patent protection to biotechnology inventions (especially genetic inventions). The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards for the member nations to follow while granting patents; however, it leaves potential gaps and uncertainties as to the scope of numerous terms such as invention, microorganisms, microbiological processes and essentially biological processes. These gaps and uncertainties affect developing countries seriously given their relatively slow pace of scientific and technological development. The technology-neutral character of TRIPS does not allow special treatment to biotechnology inventions. International patent regime is the result of the efforts made by member nations to harmonise the patent laws and provide a uniform set of standards for the world. However, in the context of biotechnology patents, the divergence in patent practices among member nations makes it difficult to provide a uniform standard for the whole world. Moreover, there is a political divide between developed and developing countries as developed countries push for expanding the scope of patent eligible subject matter boundary by eliminating the exceptions from the text of TRIPS while developing countries are against this approach. In the biotechnological context, creating a single set of patenting guidelines for the entire world has proved very difficult to achieve given the controversy over issues such as patenting plants and animals. Both uniformity and diversity have potential and pitfalls, and the relevant question is to what extent inter-jurisdictional diversity and competition should be sacrificed to achieve global uniformity.

Keywords

Biotechnology Gene Patents International patent regime TRIPS Agreement Differentiation versus harmonisation Draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) 

References

  1. Bera Rajendra K. (2009) Harmonization of patent laws. Current Science 96: 457Google Scholar
  2. Blakeney M. (2002) Access to Genetic Resources, Gene-based Inventions and Agriculture. www.iprcommission.org. Accessed 4 May 2012
  3. Bonadio Enrico (2009) Biotechnology and Patent Law http://www.dpsd.unimi.it/Italian_Intellectual_Property/archive/biotech.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2012
  4. Correa Carlos M. (2001–2002) Internationalisation of the Patent System and New Technologies. Wisconsin International Law Journal 20: 523 (www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed 5 October 2011)
  5. Jonathan Curci (2005) The new challenges to the international patentability of biotechnology: legal relations between the WTO treaty on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the Convention on Biological Diversity. International Law & Management Review 2:1. Available via West Law. www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed 15 May 2008Google Scholar
  6. Duffy John F. (2002) Harmony and diversity in global patent law. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 685–7: 726. http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/17_02_02.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2012Google Scholar
  7. Dutfield Graham (2009) Intellectual property rights and the life science industries-past, present and future, 2nd edn. World Scientific Co. Pte. Ltd., SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grain (2001) TRIPS-plus through the back door: How bilateral treaties impose much stronger rules for IPRs on life than the WTO. http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=6. Accessed 8 May 2012
  9. GRAIN (2002) WIPO moves toward world patent system. http://www.grain.org/system/old/docs/wipo-patent-2002-en.pdf. Accessed 10 May 10, 2012
  10. Habiba Saeed (2009) TRIPS: Patenting of biotechnological inventions. International Journal of Humanities 16: 64Google Scholar
  11. Keim Benjamin (2007) Patent eligible subject matter in the biotechnological arts. http://works.bepress.com/benjamin_keim/1. Accessed 15 October 2011
  12. Loughlan Patricia (1998) Patents: Breaking into the Loop. Sydney Law Review 20: 513Google Scholar
  13. McManis Charles R. (2003) Patenting genetic products and processes: A TRIPS Perspective. In: F. Scott Kieff (ed.) Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project. Elsevier Academic Press, London (U.K.) p. 80Google Scholar
  14. Palombi Luigi (2003) Patentable Subject Matter, TRIPS and the European Biotechnology Directive, Australia and Patenting Human Genes. UNSW Law Journal Forum Genetics & Law 9: 33Google Scholar
  15. Reichman, J. H. and Dreyfuss, R. C. (2007) Harmonization without consensus: critical reflections on drafting a substantive patent law treaty. Duke Law Journal 57: 86Google Scholar
  16. Sekar Soundarapandian and Kandavel Dhandayuthapani (2004) The future of patent deposition of microorganisms? TRENDS in Biotechnology 22: 214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith Carrie P. (2000) Patenting Life: the potential and the pitfalls of using the WTO to globalize intellectual property rights. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 26: 143. Available via West Law. www.international.westlaw.com. Accessed May 2, 2012Google Scholar
  18. UNCTAD-ICTSD Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (2005).Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. WIPO Magazine (2006) Patent Law Harmonization: What Happened? http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/03/article_0007.html. Accessed 8 May 2012

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity Law SchoolNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations